JAYANTA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner relates to alleged illegal act on the part of the respondent No. 4 in issuing the impugned order of termination dated 10th day of July, 2007. The petitioner by filing the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution sought for direction upon the respondents-authorities to withdraw/cancel the said order of termination as well as for issuance of direction upon the said authority for not giving effect to the impugned order dated 10th July, 2007.

(2.) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be summed up as follows: -The petitioner was appointed in the post of Constable in Central Reserve police Force by letter of appointment dated 14th day of January, 2006. He was directed to join in the said post on 25th January, 2006. According to Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, the enrolment of the petitioner in the said Force is for a period of three years and during this period of engagement, he is liable to be terminated at any time on one month's notice by the Appointing authority and those who are not given substantive status even after the said period, are to be considered for quasi-permanent assignment under provisions of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner having completed only one year six months in the said post, he could not acquire the permanent or quasi-permanent status and had been considered as temporary servant under the said Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force, 1955. The petitioner to his utter shock and surprise was served with a notice of termination issued by the Additional Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Group Centre, durgapur, being respondent No. 5 herein. He was given one month's notice and after expiry of one month, his service was to be terminated on or from 4th July, 2007. Such order of termination though apparently looks termination simpliciter, is couched with stigma. It was a penal order. The petitioner having not been given an opportunity of hearing, the said order of termination is illegal and liable to be quashed. In the circumstances, the petitioner approached this court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) MR. Kishore Dutta, appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of the court to the relevant correspondence relating to offer of appointment for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF submitted that the same requires close scrutiny for proper appreciation of the grievances raised in the present application. Paragraph-2 of such correspondence being annexure-"p1" at page 30 is as follows: -