Devashish Choubey vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, a Constable in C.R.P.F., has been terminated from service by issue of order dated 11/09/2006 after prior notice of one month. The said order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application.

The facts in short are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in C.R.P.F. and then he was sent for training to Chennai C.R.P.F. Centre. During the training period itself the petitioner absented unauthorizedly and absconded on and from 31/05/2006 itself by abandoning the training without any intimation an i for than an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondents and a letter was also sent to the father of the petitioner on 17/06/2006 to send the petitioner back for training if he had reached his village home. When nothing was heard and the petitioner did not report then a notice for termination of service was issued against the petitioner on 11/08/2006 under Rule 5, Sub-rule (1) of CCS. (Temporary Service) Rule 1965 intimating that after expiry of one month''s notice period the petitioner may be terminated from service. Ultimately, after expiry of one month from the date of notice the petitioner was terminated from service on 11/09/2006.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that against the said order of termination he filed a mercy appeal before Respondent No. 2, i.e. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Digha, Patna through a Member of Parliament but when no order was passed on his mere appeal he filed the present writ application.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that since the petitioner fell ill and, therefore, he came back to his village home and, thereafter, he could not join the training. In such a situation a sympathetic view be taken and the petitioner may be allowed to be reinstated. The punishment of termination from service is very harsh.

From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that against the order of termination from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Inspector General, CRPF, Bihar Sector, Patna on 18/01/2007.

This fact has not been denied by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

According to the respondents, the petitioner was a member of disciplined force like CRPF and he without any, sanction of leave/permission of the competent authority absented himself, which was a case of gross negligence and indiscipline on his part. He never informed his employer, either in writing or telephonically: though there was ample opportunity to do so, which clearly speaks about his careless and indiscipline attitude, rendering him unsuitable for a disciplined force like CRPF.

In the given situation, the stands taken by the- respondents CRPF is justifiable. The action has been taken against he petitioner under the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The attitude and the conduct of the petitioner slowing gross indiscipline, in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not require any sympathetic consideration. No case is made out for any interference by this Court and, hence, this writ application is dismissed.