SUBASH CHANDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who was a probationer constable, has come before this Court against the Order No. 28/2006 dated 7.2.2006, issued by the Commandant, Indian Reserve Battalion, Jamtara Camp, JAP-1 Ranchi Annexure-4, by which he has been discharged under Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual allegedly without any notice or any proceeding.

(2.) Petitioner on being declared successful after interview and physical test for recruitment of constable in Indian Reserve Battalion, Jamtara Camp, for the JAP-1 joined at Jharkhand Armed Police-I, Doranda Ranchi on 03.05.2005 to undergo training meant for such constable of the Indian Reserve Battalion. He attended training at Tatisilwai Camp on 10.05.2005, thereafter, at Padma Training Camp, Hazaribagh on 28.05.2005 and left the training in June, 2005 on account of serious illness of his mother after submitting a leave application, according to him. He came across paper notice contained at Annexure-I, which was published on 14/15 December, 2005 asking the petitioner among the list of 70 such constables, who had left the training from JAP-I (sic) to report for duty, failing which action should be taken against them under Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. The petitioner was one of them at serial no. 22 and, therefore, according to him, vide Annexure-2 and 3, he had submitted application for his joining through registered courier. Despite that he has been removed from service by the impugned order contained at Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is applicable to Executive Officer and not: to police constable and secondly the respondents are not justifying by terminating the petitioner from probation even after he has responded to notice Annexure-1, vide Annexures-2 and 3, in December, 2006 itself.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, submits that Rule-668 of the Jharkhand Police Manual is also applicable to such police Constables. This issue has squarely been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2012 4 JCR 598. In the said case also, the petitioner was constable, who had reported for duty in Indian Reserve Battalion, had left the training centre without information. It is submitted that the petitioner was given notice after almost five months of desertion from training, but the petitioner chose not to submit his joining and documents annexed on his behalf are only concocted documents. No proof of such notice has been furnished by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that he had tried to submit his joining after issuance of Annexure-I.