AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 205 wordsLeave granted.
Having considered the matter, we find that the termination ordered by the appropriate authority, i.e., the Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, does not comply with the basic requirements of reasonableness. The termination letter does not cite any reason, whatsoever, for terminating the services of the respondent. We decline to go into the reasons sought to be supplied by a counter affidavit (See: AIR 1952 SC 16-Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji and AIR 1978 SC 851-Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, & Ors.
In the circumstances, it is difficult to approve the termination. However, Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out a decision of this Court in C.A. Nos. 9032-9033 of 2014, Jai Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein this Court compensated the similarly situated employee in monetary terms instead of reinstatement.
In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to close the matter by directing that the appellants shall pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the respondent within three months from today.
The order of termination shall remain effective.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.