AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals have been filed after expiry of period of limitation. The application for condonation of delay has not been filed.
In view of the above, the appeals, filed after the period of limitation, are not maintainable. It is moreso when even after pointing out the defect about
limitation, the appellants did not cure it by maintaining an application for condonation of delay thus on this ground itself, all the appeals deserve to be
dismissed, however, we are considering merit of the cases also.
This bunch of appeals has been filed against the order dated 26th February, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petitions of the
petitioner-appellants were allowed. The orders of termination from services have been set aside with a direction to reinstate the petitioner-appellants
within the period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is, however, with liberty to the respondent-non-appellants to proceed
against the petitioner-appellants in consonance to the Service Rules and Standing Orders.
It is a case where the petitioner-appellants were selected and appointed on the post of Constable initially for the period of two years on probation.
They were sent for training to Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, Panchkula, Haryana (for short “ITBPâ€). All the petitioners abstained from
training in between without permission. They were asked to join the training by sending notices but were not responded. The non-appellants then
terminated services of all the appellants by exercising powers under Rule 23-A Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short “the Rules of 1951â€).
The orders of termination were assailed on many grounds, which includes, applicability of Rule 23-A of the Rules of 1951. The Rule aforesaid is
applicable for temporary employees. The appellants were appointed on regular basis on probation.
Learned Single Judge accepted the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and, accordingly, set aside the orders of termination. It
is with liberty to the respondent-non-appellants to proceed in accordance with the relevant Service Rules and Standing Orders. It is after taking into
consideration that the appellants abstained from training. It is said to be due to illness and many other reasons. Since many appellants have already
been served with the charge sheet, the allegations would be considered by the Enquiry Officer. We are thus not making comment on conduct of the
appellants.
These appeals have been filed as salary of the intervening period has not been awarded.
It is submitted that when termination was held to be illegal then consequence should be reinstatement with backwages. No reason for denial of salary
of intervening period exists. In view of the above, this Court may cause interference in the impugned order to the extent of denial of salary of the
intervening period.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment under challenge, so as the record.
It is not in dispute that after appointment of the appellants on probation, they were sent for training with ITBP, Panchkula. The period of training was
of two years, as stated by learned counsel for the appellants. All the appellants abstained from training in between for different period, which is upto
six months. It is said to be due to illness or other reasons. It has come on record that the appellants were sent notice with a request to report for
training but they did not respond to the aforesaid. It is moreso when their applications to proceed on leave, in few cases, were not accepted by ITBP.
In any case, the issue aforesaid would be considered in the enquiry, if initiated. The termination orders have been set aside on the ground that it was
passed by invoking Rule 23-A of the Rules of 1951. It applies to those, who are appointed on temporary basis and not on probation. It is settled law
that a probationer, not discharging duties satisfactorily, can be terminated by an order simplicitor but that action was not taken by the non-appellants.
The orders of termination have been set aside on technical ground. The benefit of intervening period has not been given, rather, the judgment is silent
on the aforesaid. It is, however, a fact that a direction to reinstate the appellants within the period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
the order has already been complied. The order of learned Single Judge gives liberty to the non-appellants to proceed in consonance to relevant
Service Rules and Standing Orders. The liberty aforesaid has been given after noticing facts of the case and is the reason for non-grant of benefit of
intervening period. If there was a delinquency or default on the part of the appellants, it cannot be condoned on technical ground rather it would
remain subject to outcome of the charge sheet, if given to any of the appellants.
It is also a settled law that in each case, the direction for back-wages/salary of intervening period cannot be given. The direction aforesaid can be
given by the Court, if there exists no default whatsoever on the part of the employee for the adverse order. We are deliberately not commenting on
conduct of the appellants as it is subject matter of enquiry in few cases otherwise it is writ large and sufficient to deny benefit of intervening period.
It can be even on the analogy of “no work no wage†apart from the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to cause interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge, rather, affirm the order aforesaid.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.