NAND KUMAR YADAV Vs. UNIONOF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged the validity and/or legality of the order dated 4th May, 1992 passed by the respondent Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Eastern Railway, Calcutta wherein the said Chief Security Commissioner categorically held that the petitioner has been rightly discharged from the training as per statutory provisions contained in R.P.F. Rules, 1987.

(2.) From the records it appears that the petitioner was selected as R.P.F. constable on or about 15th February, 1989 and thereafter joined the training center for undergoing a preliminary training. Before completion of the said training, the Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Eastern Railway, Sealdah issued an order on 11 th May, 1990 discharging the said petitioner from service with immediate effect. The text of the said order is quoted hereunder : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_531_WBLR2_2006Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) Challenging the said order the petitioner herein filed a writ petition before this Court on the earlier occasion, which was numbered as CO. No. 1019 (W) of 1991. This Hon'ble Court finally decided the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner on 11th March, 1992 and quashed the aforesaid impugned order. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereunder : "Heard the learned Advocates for the writ petitioner and for the Railway authorities. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order in annexure 'A' to the petition wherefrom it appears that the petitioner who was undergoing training under the Divisional Security Commissioner, D.R.M., Sealdah, after being properly selected therefor, has been discharged with immediate effect. Admittedly, no charge was levelled against the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to him for hearing nor was he allowed to defend himself. There is admitted violation of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the Railways has however, submitted that the petitioner himself has suppressed certain facts and is not entitled to any equitable relief from the Writ Court. Considering all submissions, this Court is of the view that the appropriate opportunity of defending should have been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Respondents may be right in passing the impugned order ultimately, but since there is violation of principle of natural justice, such order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. This judgment will not prevent the respondents authorities to take any action in law by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by permitting him to appear and file objection, if any. It is made clear that by quashing the impugned order, if the petitioner is entitled to any financial relief, the same may be given to the petitioner in accordance with law.