Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1366 (JHR)

Saidul Khan S/o Zakeer Khan v. Union of India

2022-12-06

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the office order dated 03/09/2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner in most arbitrary manner without giving the petitioner any show cause or opportunity of hearing and also commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as sepoy in Central Reserve Police Force, Simdri, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) vide appointment letter dated 30.05.2011. He further submits that the petitioner joined on 27.06.2011 and was doing his duty. By the impugned order dated 03rd of September, 2011 the service of the petitioner has been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that as per the letter of appointment annexure-1, the petitioner is governed by CRPF Rules of 1955 and as per the impugned order his services has been terminated under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 which is not appliable upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service Rules) 1965 and for this he has relied upon a judgment passed by this court in the case of Paramjit Singh versus Union of India which in turn had referred to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 6600 of 2014 in the case of Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope versus the Union of India and Others decided on 18.04.2022 wherein it has been held that Rule 16 of CRPF Rules, 1955 clearly provides that all members of force shall be enrolled for a period of three years and they shall be liable to be discharged at any time on one month’s notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi permanency under Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 and those not declared quasi permanent shall be continued as temporary government employees. 6. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi permanency under Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 and those not declared quasi permanent shall be continued as temporary government employees. 6. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order of termination has been passed in accordance with law and the same is not stigmatic and therefore there is no applicability of any rule of natural justice while passing the impugned order of termination. The learned counsel has also submitted that continuation in service cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the order of termination is not going to entail any disqualification from employment in any other service. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this court in the case of Alok Kumar Singh vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Jhar. 1447 and he has referred to paragraph 6 of the said judgment. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2021 decided on 01.11.2022. He has referred to paragraph 9 thereof. In the said case also order of termination was passed under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ultimately the order of termination was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Learned counsel submits that termination is strictly in terms of Rules and therefore no interference is called for. Learned counsel has referred to paragraph 6 to 12 of the writ petition to submit that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had left without any intimation and permission and his conduct is not above board and the authority considered him to be unsuitable for continuation and the impugned order is not at all stigmatic. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 386 : (1997) 4 SCC 385 and also judgment reported in (2005) 13 SCC 652 . 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner joined his services on 27.06.2011 and was terminated vide impugned order dated 03.09.2011. Upon perusal of the impugned order this court finds that the same is not at all stigmatic. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of this case it is not in dispute that the petitioner joined his services on 27.06.2011 and was terminated vide impugned order dated 03.09.2011. Upon perusal of the impugned order this court finds that the same is not at all stigmatic. The impugned order has been passed by referring to sub rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by giving one month’s notice to the petitioner in terms of the said Rule. The argument of the petitioner that the aforesaid rules are not applicable is devoid of any merit in view of the judgment passed by this court in the case reported in 2022 SCC Online Jhar. 1022 in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. Union of India which has followed the earlier judgment passed by this court in the case of Purshotam Gope vs. Union of India in W.P. (S) No. 6600 of 2014. In the said case also, the argument of the petitioner that he is not governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was held to be devoid of any merit and the issue was said to be covered against the petitioner vide virtue of judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 6600 of 2014. This court finds that the point raised by the petitioner is squarely covered against the petitioner in view of the aforesaid judgment. 8. So far as the argument regarding principles of natural justice is concerned, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not at all stigmatic and the petitioner was a temporary employee and therefore he was governed by the aforesaid Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and his services has been terminated in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner being a temporary employee has no right to continue as such. The impugned order being not stigmatic, no formal departmental enquiry was called for against the petitioner. 9. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner being a temporary employee has no right to continue as such. The impugned order being not stigmatic, no formal departmental enquiry was called for against the petitioner. 9. This court also finds that the petitioner has himself mentioned in his writ petition that he had received phone call from his home on 08.07.2011 that his mother was very ill as she was suffering from hypertension and he was called to see his mother, and due to hurry he could not take permission from any higher authority, but informed about his mother’s ill health to his few fellows and companions and thereafter he joined his duty on 10.07.2011, but he was informed that he was being terminated from service and he came back home and thereafter he again went back on 08.08.2011, where he was informed that CRPF camp had shifted to Ranchi and ultimately he received his termination letter dated 03.09.2011. Considering the fact that the impugned order is not at all punitive and the background for passing the impugned order has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit justifying the impugned order of termination, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed in terms of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service Rules) 1965. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.