JOGENDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was selected on the post of Constable in pursuance to the recruitment process for the year 2013-14 in Central Reserve Police Force and was issued appointment letter dtd. 13/12/2014. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dtd. 9/2/2016 passed by the Commandant, RTC-03 PGM, vide which, his services were terminated as well as the order dtd. 14/3/2017 dismissing the statutory appeal by the Appellate Authority as well as the order dtd. 22/5/2017 dismissing his revision by respondent No.5 as not maintainable with a further prayer to reinstate him with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.

(2.) The petitioner No.155111096 Ex (RT/GD) Jogender was appointed as Constable (GD) in CRPF on 5/1/2015 against the vacancy of 29 Bn. at Group Centre, CRPF, Nagpur on temporary basis. The petitioner reported at Recruit Training Centre, Peringome, Kerala State on 27/3/2016 for basic training from Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram. The petitioner was to undergo 44 weeks of basic training w.e.f. 4/4/2016 with other recruits who reported from various parts of the country. On completion of 23 weeks basic training, the petitioner was sent on 15 days midterm leave from 1/10/2016 to 14/10/2016 as a part of the training schedule and he reported from the midterm leave on 14/10/2016. The marriage of the petitioner was fixed by his parents for 11/11/2016. Resultantly, the petitioner requested competent authority for grant of 6 days of leave but the same was not sanctioned. Under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner left for home on 5/11/2016 and after getting married reported back to RTC-3 PGM Kerala on 7/12/2016 but was not allowed to complete the remaining training and the services were terminated on 9/12/2016 by Commandant, RTC-3 PGM Kerala vide impugned order dtd. 9/12/2016. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal to the Inspector General of India, Mumbai i.e. respondent No.3 explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner was compelled to leave for home for getting married. The appeal was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Mumbai i.e. respondent No.4 vide order dtd. 14/3/2017. It was mentioned in the said order that 'desertion' during the training in a serious indisciplinary act and petitioner's services were wrongly terminated on 9/12/2016, as per provisions contained in Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 read with Rule 16 (a) of CRPF, Rules 1955. The petitioner filed revision under Sec. 29 of the CRPF Rule 1965 challenging his termination and the rejection of the appeal. Respondent No.5 passed order dtd. 22/5/2017 holding the revision as not maintainable.

(3.) While praying for the setting aside the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before inflicting the punishment of termination of service. Secondly, no charge-sheet was issued and nor any disciplinary proceedings were initiated before terminating the service of the petitioner. Third, the absence of the petitioner cannot be considered as a grave misconduct, which is made foundation of the termination of the services of the petitioner. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Department to hold a departmental enquiry before inflicting major punishment. Fourth, the petitioner had successfully completed 26 weeks of training with flying colours and appreciation. Therefore, his services could not be terminated on the ground that he was not suitable for the service. Fifth, the punishment of termination is grossly unjust, harsh and disproportional.