KARUNA MOHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Govt. advocate appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.06.1999, thereby discharging the petitioner from training as well as the order dated 05.06.1999, thereby removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner is also seeking a direction from this Court to continue to serve as A.B. Constable under the Commandant 3rd Assam Police Battalion and to continue his "basic training" under the Commandant, Armed Police Training Centre, Dergaon.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as A.B. Constable by order No. 2726 dated 12.11.1998 against an existing vacancy. By signal dated 03.02.1999 of the Inspector General of Police (TAP), Assam, the petitioner along with others were deputed to proceed to Assam Police Training Centre, Dergaon to undergo 79th Batch Basic Training commencing from 15.02.1999. It is submitted that in course of training, due to sudden emergent information received from his home, the petitioner was compelled to take casual leave from 03.05.1999 to 04.05.1999. Thereafter, he fell ill and was on treatment from 04.05.1999 to 24.05.1999, and in support of such illness, the petitioner had produced a medical certificate. During the course of training, the petitioner again reported sick from 30.05.1999, as such, on 03.06.1999, he was permitted to go home for better treatment and after a few days, when he reported at the office of the Commandant, 3rd AP Battalion (respondent No.3) he was verbally informed that he was discharged from doing training. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that at that time, the petitioner was not furnished with any document of his discharge. However, it is submitted that the petitioner had received a letter dated 21.09.2013 from the Reserve Inspector, 3rd AP Battalion by which the petitioner was informed that he had been removed from the service with immediate effect. In the said context it is submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service without any hearing and without drawing up any disciplinary proceeding, as such, the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is submitted that although the petitioner was shown to have been discharged from training by order dated 03.06.1999, he was shown to be discharged from service under B.O. No. 1419 dated 05.06.1993, but the same orders were communicated by letter dated 21.09.2013 and, as such, the communication of the orders dated 03.06.1993 and 05.06.1993, impugned herein were withheld for fifteen long years. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other benefits. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ramlakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670 and on the case of Dulu Devi Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 622.