MRINAL K SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Gurung, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N.G. Shylla, the learned State counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2009 issued by the Superintendent of Police (respondent No.4) terminating his services for unauthorized absence.

(2.) HE was provisionally appointed to the Post of U.B. Sub- Inspector of Police on 02.03.2009 vide Annexure-I on probation. According to the petitioner, he reported to the Principal, Police Training School, Shillong on 03.03.2009 and after 10 days of training, he was referred to Shillong Civil Hospital for medical treatment of the swelling of both his legs and the excruciating pain suffered by him, but was taken to Woodland Hospital by the driver of the taxi. HE was accordingly advised 15 days bed rest. When he reported for resuming his duty after taking treatment, he was not allowed to do so. Then he filed a representation dated 24.03.2009 along with the medical documents with a request to allow him to resume/continue his training. When his representation did not yield any fruit, he has no alternative but to approach the Director General of Police on 27.03.2009 for his reinstatement to the post, but this also came a cropper. HE therefore filed this writ petition for his reinstatement to his formal post.

(3.) IT is, however, contended by Mr. R. Gurung, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was entitled to notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing before terminating his services. In my opinion, when the petitioner was merely on probation, the termination of his services need not be preceded by enquiry or notice. In Kamla Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 169, the Apex Court observes in the following manner: