SREENIVASA RAO SANAPALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 30/4/2015 (Annexure P-9) by virtue of which the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the ground that he was found unsuitable to render the services, as provided under Sec. 17(II) read with Sec. 25 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Rules (for brevity, ITBP Rules).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents for the post of Constable in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (hereinafter referred to as ITBP, in short). He successfully cleared the examinations and was issued appointment letter dtd. 17/10/2005 (Annexure P-1). On joining, the petitioner was required to undergo basic training. It is the case of the petitioner that during training he suffered illness and was diagnosed as a case of 'seizures'. The petitioner was placed in low medical categorization and was deployed at static field locations, as per the exigency of work. It is further averred that despite being fit, the petitioner was not made to undergo the basic training. Rather, he was issued notice dtd. 16/6/2014 wherein he was informed about the recommendations made by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board to invalidate him from service on the ground of physical incapacitation. Though, the petitioner confronted the authorities with the medical reports about his general physical conditions issued by the Civil Surgeon, King Gorge Hospital, Vishakhapatnam, but the same was not considered by the authorities and he was issued notice dtd. 25/3/2015 (Annexure P-7) under Sec. 17(ii) and Rule 25 of ITBP Rules and ultimately, as noted above, his services were terminated, leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that before terminating his services, no proper procedure, as prescribed under the Rules was followed and he has been deprived of his right to livelihood. The competent authority did not take into consideration the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner and a unilateral decision was taken by the authorities without providing him the opportunity of being heard.