Tinkar Das VsThe State of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order whereby he was discharged from service on 04-12-2007 invoking the powers vested in the authority under regulation 746(k) of the Police Regulation of Bengal as applicable to the State of Tripura.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for appointment as Constable in the Tripura Police Department and was directed to join training at Police Training College, Narsingarh. He joined the said training on 21-02-2007 but with effect from 26-02-2007 he abstained from the training. It is not disputed that the petitioner never came for training and on 04-12-2007 an order was passed discharging him from service. Thereafter, on 28-03-2008, the petitioner sent a communication to the Principal of the Police Training College that on 26-02-2007 he came to know that his mother was unwell and, therefore, he had, after taking permission of the authority left the Police Training College with assurance of coming back on the same day. However, when he went to the hospital to attend his mother, he came to know that a police case bearing No. 07 of 2007 had been registered at Airport Police Station against him and his brother Pintu Das under Sections 419/ 468/ 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Even thereafter the petitioner neither took any steps nor filed any petition for challenging the order of discharge. He was finally acquitted in the criminal case on 23-07-2013 and has now filed this petition in February, 2014.

The only explanation for the delay is that the petitioner is a poor person and is an illiterate and, therefore, did not know about his rights. This explanation cannot be believed. The petitioner was represented by counsel in the criminal case and they could have easily told him that if he had any service matter, he could approach the High Court. In case, he did not have money, he could have approached the Legal Services Authority to file his case but there is no explanation worth the name why he did not approach the Court for six long years. It is more than apparent that the petitioner waited for the criminal case to finish before coming to the High Court.

We cannot at this stage push the clock back and send the petitioner for training to attend a course which has come to an end more than 7(seven) years back. He was to join the course in the year 2007 and we do not know whether he would have passed the course or not in that year. The least that is expected of a person who does not attend his training or his employment is that he should write a letter to his employer stating that for certain reasons he cannot attend his training or his work. If he does not do so and abstains without informing his employer, it virtually amounts to abandonment of the service. The petitioner since did not attend training and also did not send intimation for more than a year and even thereafter made no attempt to file a petition before this Court in time.

Therefore, we find that this is not a case where we should exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed.