LAWS(GAU)-2013-8-72

GAUTAM BISWAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On August 07, 2013
GAUTAM BISWAS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH Mr. P K Deka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M Bhagawati, learned State counsel, are heard at length. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Commandant, 21st AP (IR) Battalion, Hailakandi (respondent No. 7), removing the petitioner from service due to negligence of duty which was so gross that it rendered him totally unfit to be retained in a disciplinary force.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as AB Constable in 21st AP (IR) Battalion, Hailakandi by the respondent No. 7 on 23.1.2006, whereafter he was sent for basic training at the Armed Police Training Centre (APTC) at Dergaon for a period of 9 months. According to him, during his period of training, his health condition got deteriorated due to acute pain in his stomach and was found absent from duty from time to time. On 17.3.2006, the petitioner along with his brother went to the APTC, Dergaon to report about his serious illness: the training authority suggested him to get cured, which he did. On 27.8.2006, he joined his duty despite his continuing physical weakness and had requested the authority not to send him for training before his complete recovery. However, he was again sent to the APTC, Dergaon on 28.8.2006, but he again felt sick on 29 -8 -2006. As a result, he tried to meet the respondent No. 7 personally for proper treatment but he was not allowed to do so. This prompted him to leave his training centre and remained under the medical treatment at the Civil Hospital, Karimganj till 21.11.2007. The respondent No. 7 thereafter by the impugned order dated 07.09.2007, removed him from service. Admittedly, no Departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. He preferred an appeal before respondent No. 5 on 5.12.2007 challenging his removal order, but his appeal came a cropper. This is how this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was on probation at the time of his removal from service, he should have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to denial of such opportunity, he was unable to justify his absence before respondent authorities and that had due opportunity of hearing been given to him, he would have been able to persuade the respondent authorities to take a different view, and they could have been dissuaded from passing the impugned order of removal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that by denying an opportunity to present his case, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. He, therefore, strongly urges this Court to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent authorities to re -instate him to his former post with full back wages.