Pebam Santosh Singh vs The Union of India and Others

Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner, in this writ application, prays for quashing the order dated 19.4.2012 in Annexure-A/1 terminating his service as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.3.2014 in Annexure-A/3 dismissing his appeal.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the 23rd Bn. CRPF under die-in-harness scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that after his appointment, he was neither detailed for any duty nor for any training. Suddenly, the order of termination in Annexure-A/1 was passed by the Commandant, Group Centre on 19.4.2012 on the ground that he absented from duty from 30.1.2012 to 2.2.2012 and again from 16.4.2012 to 19.4.2012. It was further directed in the said order of termination that the period of absence (desertion) as stated above, shall be treated as "dies-non". Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Annexure-A/2 and the appellate authority by order dated 26.3.2014 dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

"(i) the petitioner withdrew Rs. 16,100/- through ATM of one Ct/BB Shiv Kumar Prasad on 24 and 25 Dec 2011 and misappropriated the money. Accordingly, he was awarded "Severe Censure" on 23.2.2012 by the Commandant, GC Imphal;

(ii) the petitioner deserted the camp without permission/leave, from his superior authorities, w.e.f. 29 Jan. 2012 to 02 February, 2012;

(iii) the petitioner again on 15.4.2012 abandoned his duty and deserted the camp."

Shri Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 8 JT 26 : (2002) 10 SCC 133 submitted that when an order of discharge or termination is passed with a stigma, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given and natural justice demands that the delinquent must be made aware of the allegations and given an opportunity to submit his explanation.

Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG submits that unauthorised absence or desertion from duty is a matter of record and therefore there was necessity of giving any opportunity of hearing.

In the reported case, the appellant therein was recruited as a constable in Punjab Police and his service was temporary in nature. He was discharged from service since in the opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Police, he was likely to prove inefficient as a Police officer. Challenging the said discharge order, he approached the High Court, but the High Court refused to interfere with the order of discharge and matter was brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in paragraph 6 of the reported case, recorded the reasons for discharging the appellant in the said case as reflected in the counter affidavit and came to a conclusion that when an order of discharge is attached with stigma, principles of natural justice must be followed and an opportunity of hearing is required to be given.

In the present case, the order in Annexure-A/3 is stigmatic. From the order passed by the appellate authority in Annexure-A/3, it is clear that the termination order was passed on three grounds as stated earlier. Therefore, it was necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the above reported case.

We, therefore, set aside the order in Annexure-A/3 and send the matter back to the appellate authority to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after consideration of his explanation, an order be passed afresh by the appellate authority. Consequently, the order in Annexure-A/3 is set aside.