TAPAS LAL BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to an order under Rule 15(3) of the Tripura State Rifles(Recruitment) Rules, 1984 whereby the petitioner, Tapas Lal Banik, was discharged from the services of the Tripura State Rifles. The petitioner was appointed in the 1st Battalion of the Tripura State Rifles as a Rifleman by an order dated 22nd April, 1985 issued by the Commandant. 1st Battalion of the Tripura State Rifles (TSR in short) and while working as such, he was served with the impugned notice/order dated 4th September, 1968(Annexure-l) which is reproduced below: Order

(2.) Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the impugned order was innocuously worded, in fact the said order was passed as a measure of punishment. The: learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that misconduct was the foundation and instead of holding an enquiry as to the misconduct the authority in a most illegal fashion, resorted to rule 15(3) of the Tripura State Rifles(Recruitment) Rules, 1984 (the Rules, 1984 in short). Mr. Deb, the learned counsel for the petitioner, drew my attention to some of the assertions made by the respondents in their affidavit, more particularly to the averments made in paragraphs Nos. 8 and 10 of the affidavit and reiterated that the order was a discriminatory order and that the same suffered from double jeopardy. In support of his contentions, Mr. Deb, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 1. AIR 1958 SC 36, Purushottam Lal Dhingra Vs State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 689, State of Bihar Vs Gopi Kishore Prasad; AIR 1964 SC 449, Jagdish Mitter Vs Union of India; AIR 1974 SC 2192 Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab; (1984)2 SCC 639, Anoop Jaiswal Vs Govt of India and another. 1994 Supp(3) SCC 671, Manorama Verma Vs State of Bihar & others. On the other hand, Mr UB Saha, the learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf off State/ respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed strictly in conformity with Rule 15(3) of the Rules, 1984. The learned Govt Advocate submitted that the petitioner was on probation and before confirmation, his service was assessed and thereafter terminated from service. The learned Govt. Advocate submitted that the allegation of malafide levelled against the order of termination by the petitioner is wholly unfounded. The learned Govt. Advocate in support of his contentions referred to the following decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court: 1. (1992) 2 GLR 336, Manohanlal Ray Vs Union of India & others ; 2. (1991) 1 SCC 671, State of U.P. & another Vs Kaushal Kishore Sukla; 3. (1993) 1 GLR 310, Y Nimai Singh Vs State of Manipur & ors. 4. (1994)4 SCC 189, State ofU.P. & another Vs Premlata Misra & others; 5. (1992)4 SCC 719, Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore Vs Dr Pandurang Godwalkar.

(3.) Rule 15 of the Rules, 1984 relal-.es to the period of service. As per the said rule, a member of the Tripura State Rifles; shall be on probation for a period of three years during which period he shall be liable to discharge at any time on one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of the same under the orders of the appointing authority. At the end of the period of probation for three years, a member of the TSR may be confirmed and if he is not confirmed, he may be considered for being, declared as a quasi-permanent member by the appointing authority(sub-rule 2). And if a member is not declared confirmed or quasi-permanent under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1984 as the case may be, by the appointing authority, he shall continue to be deemed as a temporary member of the TSR, liable to discharge at any time on one month's notice or on payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof under the orders of his appointing authority (sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1984). In the instant case relating to the service of the petitioner, the period of three years was over, but the petitioner neither confirmed nor declared as a quasi-permanent member under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1984 and therefore, the petitioner continued to be deemed as a temporary member of the TSR. The authority while exercising its power under Rule 15(3) of the Rules, undoubtedly took note of some of the facts as mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was asked by the company commander to fetch a water bottle during FPET that was to be conducted on 19.8.88 morning. But the petitioner not only refused to do so, but also used insubordinate language against his superior officer and also tried to assault the superior officer. The petitioner was thereafter taken to the Ordinary's room of the Commandant. It was further stated that the petitioner was confined to quarter Guard for fifteen days with effect from 20.8.88 to 3.9.88 for committing an offence under Sections 10(e) and (f) of the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, the authority decided that retention of the petitioner in the Force would adversely affect the discipline of the Battalion.