NIRMAL KAR, SOUTH TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. A. Pal for the petitioner and learned Additional G.A., Mrs. A.S. Lodh for the State respondents. [

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner with the pleadings that he was selected for recruitment for basic training of Tripura State Rifles(for short, TSR) Jawan and he joined the training centre at R.K. Nagar, w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and continued upto 11.02.2004. Thereafter, he remained absent for sometimes due to illness of his wife and his parents. The Commandant of 9th Bn. TSR by a notice dated 08.12.2004(Annexure -A to the writ petition) asked him to report to the Battalion on or before 30.12.2004, failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him as per TSR Act and Rules. Pursuant to that notice he joined his duties on 30.12.2004 and was performing his duties. But all on a sudden by order dated 14.02.2005(Annexure -B to the writ petition) he was discharged from the service, w.e.f. 10.02.2005. No disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him and he was discharged from the service illegally and wrongly. He was also not paid the salary for the period from 22.05.2004 to 18.06.2004, 03.07.2004 to 06.08.2004 and 30.12.2004 to 14.02.2005. He issued demand notice but received no response. Therefore, he filed the writ petition praying for directing the respondents to arrange payment of the arrear pay and taking him back to the service with immediate effect.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, Mr. Pal has submitted that under compelling situation the petitioner was absent from the training for a certain period but after receipt of notice, dated 08.12.2004(Annexure -A) he joined his duties on 30.12.2004, and thereafter he continued in the job without any break, whereas all on a sudden, even without issuing a show cause notice he was discharged from the job which has violated his fundamental and legal right. As per notice dated 08.12.2004, submits learned counsel, Mr. Pal, that in the event of failing to join on or before 30.12.2004 he will have to face disciplinary action but while he already joined the post he was not supposed to be dismissed from the job without affording any opportunity of being heard about his absence. It is also contended by learned counsel, Mr. Pal that Rule 10(5) of the TSR Rules was not applicable in the case of the petitioner since the petitioner was a trainee and was yet to be appointed in the service. It is also contended that by a stigmatic order the petitioner has been discharged from the service without affording him any opportunity and so he is liable to be reinstated in the job.