JETHA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order of termination dated 31/3/2006 (Annex. 5 ).

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are that petitioner was recruited in BSF and directed to report at STC on 31/10/2005 for basic recruitment training. While attending the weapon lecture class on 16/11/2005 petitioner became unconscious and he was taken to MI Room of STC, BSF, Kharkan, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) where he remained under treatment. On 18/11/2005, petitioner was referred to Medical Specialist Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur where he was advised CT Scan of Brain. THEreafter, on 23/11/2005 petitioner suffered two attacks of fits within an interval of 5-6 hours. On 24/11/2005 he was again referred to Psychiatrist, Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur along with CT Scan report where he was diagnosed as a case of G-40 and advised necessary treatment for ten days. As per opinion of Specialist, petitioner is a case of Epilepsy, therefore, his case was taken up with Frontier HQ, Jalandhar medical board to assess his suitability. As per opinion of medical board, petitioner was suffering from seizure disorder (Epilepsy) and was considered unfit for further retention in service. THE proceedings of medical board were approved by the competent authority on 9/12/2006. thereafter a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner wherein, findings and decision taken by the medical board regarding proposed removal from service were conveyed to him. Against the said notice, a representation was made by the petitioner and his representation was forwarded to next higher authority, which is Frontier HQ, BSF, Jalandhar for decision vide STC, Kharkan letter dated 28/2/2006. Frontier HQ, B. S. F,jalandhar vide letter dated 8/3/2006 directed the STC to take necessary action as per the instructions and in compliance of said communication the services of petitioner Jetha Ram were terminated w. e. f. 31/3/2006.

(3.) IN rejoinder, petitioner has tried to meet with the aforesaid contentions of respondents and submitted that although the termination order was passed at Hoshiarpur, Punjab but he was duly selected after physical and medical test within the jurisdiction of this Court and further that he could not have represented against the impugned order under Rule 28a because the higher authority to whom representation could be filed under Rule 28a has already rejected the representation on 8/3/2006, therefore, this writ petition has been filed without filing any representation under Rule 28a. IN support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court judgment reported in 2001 (9) SCC 525 (Dinesh Chandra Gahtori vs. Chief of Army Staff and Anr.) and 2005 (8) RDD 3385 (Chhotu Singh Naruka vs. Union of INdia & Ors.) and prayed that this writ petition is maintainable before this Court.