AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is filed praying the following relief:
“….. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as CRPF Constable by setting aside the termination order No.D.V3/2014-Est-5, dated 02.08.2014 of the 3rd respondent and which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in order No.R.XIII63/2016-Adm-7 dated: 08.09.2016 of the 2nd respondent and further rejection order No. R. XIII-63/2016-Adm-7, dated 04.01.2017 of the 3rd respondent by holding the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discrimination being violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
2.1. Petitioner was selected as Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable in the year 2013 and then deputed for basic training at Recruit Training Centre (RTC), CRPF, Peringome, where he reported to duty on 23.10.2013. Petitioner left the RTC Campus on 29.10.2013 without any intimation/ permission of the competent authority. Despite best efforts by the RTC, Peringome, he did not report for training nor sent any intimation. Since the petitioner did not report back for duty even after lapse of three weeks, his services were terminated w.e.f. 18.11.2013 by the RTC, CRPF, Peringome vide order No.T.V.1/2013-EC-III (KKR), dated 18.11.1013.
2.2. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 18.11.2013, petitioner preferred appeal before the IGP, CRPF, SS, Hyderabad. Vide office order dated 28.03.2014, petitioner was reinstated into service. On reinstatement, petitioner was deputed for basic training at RTC NMW campus and he reported at RTC NMH on 19.07.2014. Again, he deserted from the said campus on 31.07.2014 without any intimation or permission from the competent authority. The Petitioner’s services were again terminated by the 2nd respondent vide his order, dated 02.08.2014.
2.3. Aggrieved by the termination orders dated 02.08.2014, petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent on 16.06.2016 with a request to reinstate him into service on the ground that while undergoing training, his mother fell sick and he sought permission from the respondents and orally requested for leave, but the respondents did not consider his request. Therefore, with no other alternative, he left the office without permission. But, said appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 08.09.2016 on the ground that he had not submitted any documentary proof in support of his mother’s ill health and therefore, his plea in the appeal is not tenable.
2.4. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent on 07.12.2016 by enclosing documentary evidence of medical receipts. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the 3rd respondent on 04.01.2017 on the ground that as per CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, there is no provision to consider second appeal/representation against the order of termination.
Respondents filed counter denying all the material allegations and averments made by the petitioner and contended that petitioner was enlisted during 2013 by Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy and was dispatched for training at Peringome and he reported to duty on 23.10.2013, however, he deserted from campus on 29.10.2013 without any intimation to the competent authority. On appeal, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 28.03.2014 by considering the young age, family background of the petitioner and ignorance about rules/ regulations in force and also a lenient and sympathetic view.
3.1. That on reinstatement, he was dispatched for basic training by Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram and he had reported at Recruits Training College, CRPF, Neemuch on 19.07.2014. Again, petitioner deserted from the said institution on 31.07.2014 without any intimation / permission from the competent authority. An FIR was lodged by the institution and despite best efforts by the institution, petitioner did not report for training nor sent any intimation. Accordingly, he was again terminated from service w.e.f. 02.08.2014 as per sub-rule (1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. Against the termination order dated 02.08.2014, petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent with a request to reinstate him into service. However, said appeal was rejected by the appellant authority vide order dated 08.09.2016 being devoid of merit.
3.2. It is further contended that petitioner himself admitted that he left the service without permission, which clearly establish that he willfully knowing the consequences, deserted the camp. Therefore, the respondents have rightly taken action as per rule/instructions in existence. Moreover, the petitioner deserted twice within a short period of nine months during his basic training period, which is serious indiscipline which cannot be accepted. It is contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Heard Ms. N.Uma Devi, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Maithili, learned counsel appearing for Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General representing for respondents.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that since the petitioner is only the person to look after the welfare of his mother, who fell sick, the petitioner left the training campus without permission because of urgency as the respondents did not sanction leave and which action is neither willful nor wanton. She further submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner for reconsideration by taking his family position and age factor and prayed for allowing the appeal.
Learned counsel further contended that it is mandatory to give one month notice before termination of services of the petitioner. However, the respondents did not give one month notice before his termination, therefore, termination of petitioner from the services is illegal and thus, termination order is liable to be set aside/quashed.
Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that on enlisting the petitioner during the year 2013, he was dispatched for basic training at Recruit Training Centre (RTC), Peringome, Kerala on 23.10.2013. The Petitioner deserted from the RTC campus on 29.10.2013 without any intimation and therefore, he was terminated from the service w.e.f. 18.11.2013. However, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was again dispatched to training at Neemuch on 19.07.2014 and his basic training commenced w.e.f. 21.07.2014. The petitioner again deserted / absconded from the Training Centre, Neemuch on 31.07.2014.
It is further contended that on two occasions, within the short period of commencement of training, the petitioner deserted/absconded from the training centre without any intimation to the competent authority. The conduct of the petitioner and his desertion from the training camp is in violation of the rules/regulations. It also shows indiscipline and irresponsibility of the petitioner in a disciplined organization. Since the petitioner deserted/absconded from the training centre without intimation to the competent authority, the competent authority was justified in terminating the services of petitioner as per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 after following due procedure. She therefore submitted that there are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration:
It is relevant to extract Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules (for short, ‘Temporary Service Rules), which reads as under:
“Rule 5. Termination of temporary service.
(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month.
Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
Note:- The following procedure shall be adopted by the appointing authority while serving notice on such Government servant under clause (a)--.
(i) The notice shall be delivered or tendered to the Government servant in person.
(ii) Where personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served on such Government servant by registered post, acknowledgement due at the address of the Government servant available with the appointing authority.
(iii) If the notice sent by registered post is returned un served it shall be published in the Official Gazette and upon such publication, it shall be deemed to have been personally served on such Government servant on the date it was published in the Official Gazette.
(2)(a) Where a notice is given by the appointing authority terminating the services of a temporary Government servant, or where the service of any such Government servant is terminated on the expiry of the period of such notice or forthwith the Central Government or any other authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf or a head of Department, if the said authority is subordinate to him, may, of its own motion or otherwise, reopen the case and after making such inquiry as it deems fit-
(i) confirm the action taken by the appointing authority;
(ii) withdraw the notice;
(iii) reinstate the Government servant in service; or
(iv) make such other order in the case as it may consider proper.
Provided that except in special circumstances, which should be recorded in writing, no case shall be re-opened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three months -
(i) from the date of notice, in a case where notice is given;
(ii) from the date of termination of service, in a case where no notice is given.
(b) Where a Government servant is reinstated in service under sub-rule (2) the order of reinstatement shall specify–
(i) the amount or proportion of pay and allowances, if any, to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence between the date of termination of his services and the date of his reinstatement; and
(ii) whether, the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any specified purpose or purposes.”
Having regard to the fact that petitioner deserted from the training centre twice while undergoing basic training, within a short span of period, which fact is admitted by the petitioner, the only question remains is whether such desertion was on genuine grounds, warranting a lenient view for reinstatement of the petitioner into the service.
Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that petitioner left the training campus without permission of the competent authority to attend to his ailing mother, as the respondents did not sanction leave. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner left the training campus twice without permission. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is in disciplined organization and therefore, even in the case of exigency, petitioner was supposed to approach the competent authority and obtain requisite permission/leave and thereafter, proceed to attend to his ailing mother.
Petitioner did not place any material nor made any specific averment in the writ petition to substantiate his claim that he had approached the competent authority seeking leave/ permission and that the competent authority did not accept his request. Further, the petitioner did not submit any document evidencing illness of his mother and that he had to leave the campus in great urgency without leave to attend to his ailing mother.
A perusal of the order dated 08.09.2016 of the 2nd respondent, it is evident that services of petitioner were terminated in accordance with sub-rule (1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide order No.T.V-3/2014-EC-V, dated 02.08.2014.
The decision relied by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Union of India and others vs. Giriraj Sharma 1004 Supp (3) SCC 755 the facts are completely different as in that case the issue was whether, overstaying the period of leave can be ground for dismissal. However, in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner deserted the training campus twice without permission of authorities in clear violation of rules, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable on facts and thus, does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that one month notice was not given to the petitioner prior to termination, a perusal of proceedings dated 08.09.2016 (by which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected), shows that one month notice was issued and therefore, said contention of learned counsel for petitioner is contrary to material on record.
Even otherwise, the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, provides that services of any Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
In the light of above discussion and the material placed on record, the petitioner failed to make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order.
Conclusion:
In the light of above factual background and discussion, in considered view of this Court, Writ Petition is devoid of merits and thus, fails and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.