Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 290 (ORI)

Ranjan Kumar Panda v. Union of India

2010-04-19

A.S.NAIDU, S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : Petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 5th May, 1999 passed by the Principal, Railway Protection Force (for short “RPF”) Training School, Khargpur (Annexure-5) discharging him from training on the ground that, on verifica¬tion, his character and antecedent was found to be not satisfac¬tory, as well as the order dated Ist December, 1999 (Annexure-6) calling upon the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.4,721/- re¬ceived by him towards stipend during the training period. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the Writ application are as follows :- In pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1996 by the Railway Administration, for filling up the posts of Consta¬bles in RPF, the petitioner submitted has application on 16th December, 1996. He was directed to appear provisionally in the physical test on 17th August 1998, viva-voce test on 13th Octo¬ber, 1998 and medical test on 17th December,1998. Having been found eligible he was selected as a recruit for appointment as Constable in the RPF and was appointed by order dated 19th Febru¬ary, 1999. After such appointment the petitioner was directed to attend the training at Khargpur w.e.f. 8th March, 1999. Petition¬er complied with the orders and reported at Khargpur and took part in the rigorous training course. 3. While matter stood thus, it is alleged, without any rhyme or reason on 3rd December 1999 he was communicated by order dated Ist December, 1999 that he has been discharged from train¬ing on the ground that he was found not suitable for the post in question and was further directed to refund the amount which was paid to him towards stipend during his training period. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court mainly on the ground that the order of discharge having been passed without according any opportunity of hearing and by assigning stigma to the petitioner, the same is unjust, illegal and may be set aside. 4. After receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. Most of the factual aspects are admitted, but then, it is averred that the petitioner had fur¬nished wrong information in the forms submitted by him. He had also executed an agreement certifying that he possessed a good moral character and was not involved in any criminal antecedent. After receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. Most of the factual aspects are admitted, but then, it is averred that the petitioner had fur¬nished wrong information in the forms submitted by him. He had also executed an agreement certifying that he possessed a good moral character and was not involved in any criminal antecedent. However,in course of police verification, it was found that the petitioner was an accused in G.R. Case No.1021/1995 of the Court of J.M.S.M., Bhadrak and was found guilty under Section 325 I.P.C. and was released under Probation of Offenders Act by executing a bond for Rs.1,000/-. On coming to know about such fact, the authorities came to the conclusion that as the peti¬tioner did not possess good character and had criminal anteced¬ent, he was not suitable for being appointed as a constable in the RPF. Consequently he was disengaged from training and was directed to refund the entire amount received towards his sti¬pend. It is further contended that as the petitioner was not appointed, no right had accrued upon him. 5. In course of hearing, Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, submitted that on the basis of the selection and appointment a right had accrued upon the petitioner and such right should not be taken away without according adequate oppor¬tunity to the petitioner to show cause,more so because the author¬ities have cast stigma upon the petitioner. 6. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, forcefully submitted that in fact the petitioner was not appointed, he was only provisionally selected and was called upon to attend training and as such no right had accrued upon him. According to Mr. Patnaik, permitting the peti¬tioner to take training, pending verification of his charter and antecedent did not vest any right upon him. After verification, the authorities came to know that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was convicted and arrived at a conclusion that he was not fit to be appointed as a constable in the RPF. Thus, no infirmity or illegality has been committed. 7. We have heard, learned counsel for the parteis at length, perused the pleadings and other materials annexed there to meticulously. Thus, no infirmity or illegality has been committed. 7. We have heard, learned counsel for the parteis at length, perused the pleadings and other materials annexed there to meticulously. By letter dated 19.2.1999 (Annexure-3) the Divi¬sional Security Commissioner, Khurda, intimated the petitioner that he had been enlisted to undergo initial course training before posting as Constable in RPF. Perusal of the said letter gives an impression that the petitioner had faced rigorous re¬cruitment test, found medically fit and thereafter was selected for being appointed as a Constable.Before posting as a Constable he was directed to under go training. Thus, the selection process had come to an end and the petitioner having been found fit was appointed, but then his posting as Constable was deferred till the training period is over. Thus, we find some force in the submissions made by Mr. Mishra that the petitioner was in fact selected and appointed and by such appointment a right had ac¬crued upon him. The only ground on which the petitioner has been disengaged from training is that, on verification it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case i.e. G.R. Case No.1021/1995 and was convicted for commission of offence under Section 325 I.P.C. However, he was released under the Probation of Offender’s Act. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is averred by the petitioner that the order of conviction passed in G.R. Case No.1021/1995 was assailed in appeal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak. The said appeal was allowed. Thus, the order of conviction was set aside. The said statement has not been disputed by the opposite parties,and thus is accepted, applying the principles of non-traverse. 8. Thus the reasonings basing upon which the petitioner was disengaged are also found to be not correct, as the order of conviction has been set aside by the appellate Court. Only be¬cause some allegations were made against a person, he cannot be found unsuitable, unless of course the allegations are proved and the person is convicted. In the case at hand, the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate Court. The said aspect was not consid¬ered by the authorities. This Court, therefore, feels that the decision to disengage the petitioner was taken in a haste and without proper application of mind and thus was not just and proper. In the case at hand, the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate Court. The said aspect was not consid¬ered by the authorities. This Court, therefore, feels that the decision to disengage the petitioner was taken in a haste and without proper application of mind and thus was not just and proper. Even otherwise a right had accrued upon the petitioner by virtue of the selection and appointment. Such right could not have been taken away without following the principles of natural justice and equity. In the case at hand, certain allegations were received with regard to the petitioner’s past antecedent, but then no opportunity was given to him to explain the same (See Smt. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India). It is needless to say that if opportunity would have been granted to the petitioner, he would have brought to the notice of the authorities that the allegations were baseless and that the order of conviction was set aside by the appellate Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and infirmities, this Court feels that the order of disengagement of the petitioner from the training was passed without observing required paraphernalia and without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause with regard to the allegations leveled against him. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to set aside Annexure-5 and 6 and dispose of the Writ application with an observation that the authority shall issue notice to the peti¬tioner, calling upon him to show cause and after causing enquiry, pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law. S.K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Application disposed of.