SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved and challenges order of respondent no.5 bearing No. D.II.1/2002-GC-EC.II dtd. 27/4/2002 whereby, services of petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. 27/4/2002. Before adverting to grounds on which order impugned has been assailed, it would be apposite to refer to the brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to passing of order impugned by respondent No.5.

(2.) Respondents vide order dated May 2001 selected and appointed petitioner as constable (GD) in CRPF after the petitioner qualified all the tests including the physical standard test. Petitioner was also checked by Board of Doctors and was found physically fit by the respondents and was sent for undergoing training at Group Centre CRPF Khatkhati Assam. Petitioner was allotted number 01507064, completed 16 weeks training and the 17th week was started, however, during the training period respondents vide order impugned dtd. 27/4/2002 terminated services of petitioner under Sub-Rule (I) of Rule IV of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 without assigning any reason, reasonable cause, affording an opportunity being heard and without conducting proper enquiry. Petitioner has averred, that he has not done anything for which such a major, excessive and disproportionate punishment has been imposed, however, respondents have deprived the petitioner and have not given equal treatment to him. In the backdrop of the above narrated facts, petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Sec. 103 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir has sought issuance of the appropriate writ, order or direction of the following nature:-

(3.) Petitioner in his writ petition has averred, that the respondents invited applications for the post of Constable and the petitioner applied for the said post; that the respondents thereafter issued letter No. R.II.2/2000-GC-EC.V dtd. 6/12/2000 by which the respondents directed the petitioner to appear with original documents on 2/2/2001 for checking of eligibility and physical standard of the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF; that the petitioner qualified the physical standard test, thereafter the respondents issued letter No. R.II.2/2001-GC-EC.V dated April 2001 by which the respondents invited the petitioner to appear for written test on 28/4/2001 as the petitioner had qualified the physical test; that the petitioner qualified all the tests, the petitioner was also checked by the Board of Doctors and he was found medically fit by the respondents, thereafter the respondents issued Order No. R.II.2/2000-GC-EC.V dated May 2001 by which the respondents offered appointment to the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner has been given offer of appointment as Constable (GD) in CRPF in the pay scale of Rs.3050.004590 as admissible to the Central Government Employees from time to time by allotting No. 015070641; that the petitioner was sent for undergoing training at Group Centre CRPF Khatkhati Assam wherein he has completed 16 weeks training and the 17 week was started, however, during the training period the respondents issued Order No. D.II.1/2002-GC-EC.II dtd. 27/4/2002 by which the respondents (Addl. DIGP, CRPF, Group Centre, Ban Talab Jammu) have terminated the services of petitioner vide order dtd. 27/4/2002; that in the order the respondents have mentioned that the services of petitioner are being terminated under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; that the respondents have not assigned any reason in the order and without any reasonable cause and reasons, terminated the services of petitioner; that under Rule 5(1) of Temporary Service Rules, 1965 it is categorically mentioned that the services of temporary government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant and the period of such notice shall be one month; in the present case the respondents have neither gave any notice to the petitioner nor afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and terminated the services of petitioner without any reasonable cause and reasons; that the respondents without assigning any reason and without issuing any notice terminated the services of the petitioner that too without following the provisions of law, without affording an opportunity of being heard and without conducting proper inquiry; the petitioner has not done anything for which such a major, excessive and disproportionate punishment has to be imposed; that the respondents have not issued any Discharge Certificate while under the provisions of Rule 17 of CRPF Rules any member of the force shall, at any time before he has completed three months service or after completion of full period of service to which he is engaged, be entitled to claim his discharge from the force by applying to his appointment authority, and under Rule 18 every member on leaving the force shall be entitled to Discharge Certificate; that it is a settled law, that the respondents have to assign the reason of termination and a person could not be thrown out of service without any reasonable cause and reasons; that the respondents have deprived the petitioner and his family from the source of livelihood and have not given equal treatment to petitioner, so the order is not sustainable as it violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.