KRISHNA KANTA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2010 in O.A. No. 1725 of 2009 passed by West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The fact of the case in short is that the petitioner Krishna Kanta Chakraborty was selected as Constable in the Kolkata Police at Midnapore Police line in December, 2006 and joined at Police Training School in Kolkata on 1st March, 2007. He was absenting from training since 06.04.2007 without any leave or permission. Therefore, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Training) issued notice asking him to join training immediately vide memo No. 385 dated 23.04.2007, No. 432 dated 24.05.2007 and No. 490 dated 28.06.2007. Finally, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Training) informed vide memo No. 546 dated 26.07.2007 that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter) vide Order No. 569 dated 25.08.2007 discharged the petitioner for unauthorized absence. He submitted a prayer for reinstatement on 01.11.2007 stating the ground of absence as mother's sickness. In the said petition he admitted that he left the training school without any intimation to the authority and he prayed for condoning his absence and allowing him to join. His representation was paid no heed by the authority. Therefore, he filed the application before learned West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vide Order No. 2 dated 30.03.2010 dismissed his case being O.A. No. 1725 of 2009 under Rule 66 on the ground that the police authority reserved the right of discharge against any recruit constable by serving one month's notice in lieu of one month's salary. Since necessary condition of discharge was strictly followed, learned Tribunal found no illegality in the order of discharge. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order the petitioner has preferred this writ application.

(2.) Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order of Tribunal suffers from illegality on two grounds. Firstly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has no power or authority to discharge the petitioner. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the discharge amounts to stigma, the petitioner is entitled to get protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He is entitled to get an opportunity to defend himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following decisions of law to establish that since stigma was attached to the petitioner in the matter of discharge, he must be given an opportunity to defend himself by way of regular proceeding.

(3.) Relying upon the aforesaid decisions of law learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that discharge of the petitioner is vitiated by illegality and cannot sustain in law in view of the fact that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself in respect of the stigma attached to him. On the other hand, Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent State of West Bengal and Others has submitted that the writ petitioner has no legal right for any regular disciplinary proceeding prior to his discharge inasmuch as he has been given temporary appointment vide notification No. 3661-PL-dated 22.06.2005 Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary dated 29.06.2005. He joined Police Training School, Barrackpore and is required to pass said training. Under Rule 5(iii). he may be discharged during the prescribed course of training in the Police Training School/Police Training College before his confirmation at any time by the competent Authority if he is considered by the authority to be unsuitable for the post. Order of discharge shall contain the ground of discharge, but no formal proceeding prescribed for removal or dismissal of Government servant shall be necessary. No appeal shall lie against the order of discharge. It is further submitted that writ petitioner absented himself for the long period in the training period without any intimation or permission of the competent authority and, therefore, he was discharged by order of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter). According to the submission of the learned counsel for the State he was neither a confirmed police constable nor a probationer. He was undergoing training. He joined in the training on 01.03.2007 and absented himself from 06.04.2007.