PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner was selected for the post of Sub-Inspector Grade II in Railway Protection Force, Western Railway in August, 1966. He was called upon to undergo a training for the period of 15 months and also to execute a bond dated September 20, 1966. THE learned counsel for the parties are agreed that Ex R/l may be taken to be the correct copy of the bond. After undergoing training, the petitioner was appointed as the Sub-Inspector on probation for a period of two years vide order Ex. R/3 dated Nov. 25, 1967 with effect from Nov. 1, 1967. THE petitioner's case is that Shri Chandgi Ram, Inspector, Railway Protection Force was transferred sometime in April, 1968 and Shri Madan Gopal took over charge of the said post as the immediate senior officer of the petitioner and he bore malice and ill-will against him and made certain false reports against him as a result of which the Security Officer, Ajmer gave him a notice dated August 28, 1968 (Ex. 5) under Rule 25 (2) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') in which 5 charges were levelled against him and it was alleged that he was negligent and dishonest in the discharge of his duties and that his work and conduct as Sub-Inspector and a member of Railway Protection Force was unbecoming and unsatisfactory. THE petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation within 14 days of the date of receipt of the aforesaid notice Ex. 5. THE petitioner submitted his representation on September 11, 1966, but after considering the same, the Security Officer, by his order dated October 9, 1968 (Ex. 7), held that 'the work and conduct' of the petitioner as a member of the Railway Protection Force was 'unsatisfactory' and, therefore, ordered that the services of the petitioner be terminated 'with immediate effect'. THE petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the termination of his services before the Chief Security Officer. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Chief Security Officer by his order dated May 29, 1969 in which it was observed that the conclusion arrived at by the Security Officer that the 'work and conduct' of the petitioner has been 'unbecoming and unsatisfactory' was correct and he entirely agreed with the same.

(2.) THE petitioner felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination of his Services and has come up before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed that the order of the termination may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to re-instate him on the post of Sub-Inspector. THE Railway Adminis-tiation has submitted its reply and has contended that the termination of the petitioner's services, who was merely appointed on probation, was in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the grievance of the petitioner is not justified.

(3.) CLAUSE (2) of the service agreement (Ex. B. 1) runs as under - "2. I understand and agree that my services can be terminated - (a) by the Chief Security Officer at any time on issue of notice of one month or the tender of one month's pay in lieu of such notice; or (b) by the appointing authority without notice on my failure to pass the final examination of the initial training course. " This service agreement was executed on September 20, 1966 in pursuance of the provisions of R. 23 of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the provisions of R. 25 (2) of the Rules could only be made applicable at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation and that the procedure prescribed in R. 25 (2) of the Rules could not be applied, as in the present case, when the termination was during the period of probation.