SAKUNTALA BASUMATARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein prays to quash the order at Annexure III. The order is dated 11.10.96. That order is quoted below :- "Annexure-m No. D.V.1/96-135-EC.III Dated the 11th Oct' 1996. OFFICE ORDER No. 953353431 Ct. (GD) Shakuntala Basumatary was declared 'UNFIT' to be retained in service (CR-F) by Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital. I, CRPF, New Delhi on 24.5.96, after her re-medical examination on the grounds of her heart disease. The report of the DMD, Bd, I, was communicated to above Ct. (GD) vide this office letter of even number dated 24.8.96 with information that due to above reasons she can not be retained in service. However, before termination of her services, who was given an opportunity to submit representation against the findings of DMO BH-I, CRPF, New Delhi, within one month from the date of receipt of above show cause notice. The above No. 953353431 Ct. (GD) has submitted her representation on 11.9.96. I have gone through carefully the representation submitted by above individual and found that she has not brought out any facts contrary to the opinion and findings of CMD, DH-I. 2. After carefully going through the relevant Rules and references, I have come to the conclusion that Ct. (GD) Shakuntala Basumatary has not produced any medical evidence, which may prove that there is possibility of any error in judgment, in the decision of Specialist of BH-1, who examined her and found her unsuitable for retention in service due to her heart disease. Hence she request made by No. 953353431 Ct. (GD) Shakuntala Basumatary, that she may be retained in service and her treatment should be undertaken by the Department, because prior to her enlistment in CRPF she was fit, has no substantial grounds in the light of instructions contained in Rule 5(1) and 7(2)' of CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957, read with circular order No. 12/79, instructions contained in COI orders 2(g) 5 below SR.4 and instructions contained in Swamy's Mannual on Establishment and Administration (P. 239), as no such provision exists do this effect that a person who is unfit on grounds on his or her physical unfitness may be retained in service. Hence giving due weighlage to Rule 6 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 also, the request of applicant for retention in service is therefore. rejected. 3. I, therefore, terminate the services of No. 953353431 Ct(M), Shakuntala Basumatary, due to her physical unfitness, from date of issue of this order i.e 11.10.1996(AN)."

(2.) On 20.2.95 the petitioner have been regularly appointed in pursuance to the selection after satisfying the eligibility/ qualification as to age and physical fitness and she was enrolled as a member of the force, that is, of the Central Reserve Police Force (herein after called CRPF). On 20.2.95 by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 2(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and she signed the Recruitment Rail in token of acceptance and served the force for a period of one year eight months till the date of her termination from service. The petitioner completed her training under Rule 25 of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 at the end of the 1st year after appointment to the post of (Constable on 20.3.96. The period of training of non of the employees was extended after the date of original appointment. On 24.4.96 after completion of training for one year, the petitioner was sent for medical examination at the.Base Hospital No. 1 C.R.P.F.,Wew Delhi in regular basis and the petitioner was examined at the Hospital. The petitioner was diagnosised is having chestes to the normal limits certified by Dr.S.K.Mitra, Radio Diagnosis Base Hospital, New Delhi, Dr. S.K. Mitra. M.D. Base Hospital Radio Diagnosist found that everything is within normal limits on 24.4.96 and this is Annexure-I to the affidavit -in-reply. But on 24.8.96 the petitioner received a letter with information that the petitioner can not be retained in service due to her heart disease. But no medical report was communicated to the petitioner with the aforesaid office letter. The petitioner was directed to submit the representation vide letter dated 10.9.96 and that is Annexure-n to the writ application, that is, quoted below :- "Sir,

(3.) Thereafter the impugned order at Annexure-III quoted above was passed terminating the services of the petitioner from the date of the issue of the order. Hence this writ application.