RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, for the State respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed to officiate as Driver on temporary basis against a regular post vide order dated 04. 02. 1997, issued by the Secretary (Transport), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. His appointment was subject to regularisation by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and as stated in the appointment order, the officiating appointment would not confer on him any right to claim continuous appointment to his post and would not be counted for seniority in the grade. The petitioner joined on 05. 02. 1997 and had been rendering his service regularly. While he was serving so, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 13. 12. 2007 informing him that the State's Standing Medical Board had declared him unfit. He was asked to submit a representation in writing within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 27. 12. 2007, contending interalia that he was not aware about the adverse medical report and made a prayer to consider his case favourably. Subsequent to the aforesaid representation, the respondent Commissioner (Transport), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the impugned order dated 24. 03. 2008 (Annexure-V) terminating the officiating service of the petitioner with immediate effect under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on the ground that he was always found under the influence of alcohol from morning to evening and he was declared medically unfit by the State's Standing Medical Board conducted on 13. 10. 2007. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25. 03. 2008 followed by another representation dated 16. 04. 2008 before the respondent Commissioner requesting him to furnish a copy of the said Medical Report and allowing him to continue in service. Having not been considered and reinstated in service, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this instant writ petition challenging the impugned termination order dated 24. 03. 2008.

(3.) MR. D. Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned termination order is not simpliciter but an order by way of punishment casting stigma on the petitioner. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities did not draw-up departmental proceeding for imposing the punishment of termination and as such, it is violative of natural justice, principle of rule of law and also of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Besides, according to Mr. Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner comes under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and so the respondents are bound to draw up the departmental proceeding against the petitioner to enquire into the alleged misconduct committed by him. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjoy Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. , as reported in 2006 (3) GLT 47, wherein it is held that an order of termination simpliciter cannot be passed under the proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, if the order leaves a stigma on the government servant, or through apparently, it is innocuous but in reality, it is punitive.