Delhi High Court
Balram Meena vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6648/2015
BALRAM MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.K. Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 10.03.2016
1. The petitioner had applied as a candidate for the post of Constable in
the Railway Protection Force (in short 'the RPF')/respondent in response to
an advertisement issued in the year 2011. Vide letter dated 1.10.2014, the
petitioner was informed that he had been provisionally selected as a
Constable in the RPF and on successful completion of training, subject to
fulfilment of other conditions, he shall be issued a call letter. Further, the
petitioner was directed to report for training on 01.11.2014. The training
period was to last for a period of 6-7 months. However, during the course of
the training on 15.6.2015, the respondent issued a discharge Memorandum
dated 15.6.2015 to the petitioner informing him that at the time of reporting
for training, he had submitted an Attestation Form dated 16.6.2014 and an
Affidavit dated 27.10.2014, affirming inter alia that he had never been
arrested and/or prosecuted, or kept under detention, whereas the
Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, Rajasthan had forwarded a police
verification report which revealed that a case had been registered against
him at PS Bhadas, Raini, Crime Case No. 162/2004 under Sections
147,323,341,149 of IPC.
2. Ms. Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
procedure adopted by the respondents while discharging the petitioner from
training and cancelling his selection to the post of Constable is flawed for
the reasons that the respondent had failed to issue any notice to show cause
to him before passing the said order, thus violating the principles of natural
justice. She states that in identical cases, the respondents have first issued a
notice to show cause to the concerned candidates, provisionally selected
before proceeding to pass any orders against them whereas in the present
case, the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunity to put forward his
defence and had such an opportunity been given to him, the impugned order
would not have been passed.
3. We have inquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to
whether any notice to show cause was issued to petitioner prior to issuing
the impugned Discharge Memorandum dated 15.6.2015, to which the reply
is in the negative. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the records
do not reveal that any Memorandum was issued to the petitioner confronting
him with the verification report received from local police station and
calling upon him to put forth his defence. In fact, there is no reference made
to the information furnished in the Police verification report in the impugned
Memorandum dated 15.6.2015.
4. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned
Memorandum cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The respondents ought to
have issued a notice to show cause to the petitioner and granted him an
opportunity to respond before passing any orders discharging him from
training. Accordingly, the impugned Memorandum is quashed and set aside
with liberty granted to the respondents to issue a notice to show cause to the
petitioner based on the police verification report received by them. The
notice to show cause shall be issued by the respondents within six weeks
from today. Upon receiving the said notice, the petitioner shall be at liberty
to explain his case and furnish the relevant documents that he proposes to
rely upon, which shall be duly considered by the respondents and only
thereafter shall an order be passed in accordance with law, under written
intimation to him.
5. The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 10, 2016
ap
