Rohit Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has called in question the impugned order dated 21-8-2007 (Annexure � P/1) whereby the Superintendent of Police, Sarguja, has discharged him from the service as Constable. On account of death of his father the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment to serve as Bal Aarakshak. When he attained the age of majority, the petitioner was appointed as Constable vide order dated 19-3-2007 (Annexure � P/2). The appointment was initially for a probation period of two years. However, during continuance of the said probation period the petitioner remained absent from duties w.e.f. 14-11-2002 to 7-1-2003, 1-9-2003 to 22-10-2003, 5-1-2004 to 30-1-2004, 8-3-2004 to 1-4-2004 and thereafter, from 25-4-2007 to 7-7-2007.

As a result of his continued and regular absence, the petitioner was served notices {Annexure � R/1 (Colly.)} to join service and thereafter, he was warned by Annexures � R/2 & R/3 that if he failed to attend the duties within 3 days proper proceeding shall be drawn against him. When the petitioner failed to respond to the notices, his service has been discharged by order dated 21-8-2007.

As would be manifest from the order of appointment dated 19-3-2007 (Annexure � P/2), the appointment of the petitioner is under Regulation 59 of the MP/CG Police Regulations, which provides that every recruit will be on probation for two years'' which may be in two periods of six months each, if the Superintendent considers it desirable. During this probationary period his services may be dispensed with at any time, if, in the opinion of the Superintendent, he is unlikely to become a satisfactory police officer.

Although learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that proper and adequate opportunity was not granted when the notices (Annexures � R/2 & R/3) were served upon him and one month''s salary has also not been paid in terms of the conditions of appointment, it is to be seen that Regulation 59 of the Police Regulations provides that his services can be dispensed with at any time, if, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the recruit is unlikely to become a satisfactory police officer.

Indisputably, the petitioner remained absent from his duty for a substantial period of time on number of occasions and every time he submitted joining when he was served with a notice. The act of the petitioner is a pointer and the authority has rightly concluded that he is unlikely to become a satisfactory police officer.

The Supreme Court in Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, has held that a probationer''s services can be terminated if on an overall appreciation of his record of service he is found unsuitable for being absorbed in the service. If the order of termination does not contain any stigma or refer to any charge of misconduct on the part of the probationer, there is no obligation to afford him an opportunity of being heard before terminating his services.

Since the appointing authority has found that the services of the petitioner are no longer required because under Regulation 59 of the Police Regulations the petitioner is unlikely to become a satisfactory police officer. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. As a sequel, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.