Patna High Court
Regt. No. 140320825 Ex. Constable ... vs The Union Of India, Through The ... on 23 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.66 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16187 of 2019
======================================================
Regt. No. 140320825 Ex. Constable Rulesh Singh Son of Kamla Singh,
Resident of Village - Nuwaon Tola, P.O. - Mangraon, P.S. - Kachohhwa,
District - Rohtas (Bihar) 821314.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home, New
Delhi.
2. The Deputy Inspector General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Area H.Q.
and Barelly, I.T.B.P. Bukharo CAMP, Barelly (U.P.)
3. The Commandant, 7th B.N., Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Office of
Commandant, 7th BN, I.T.B.P. (MNA) (GOI), P.S. - Merthi, District -
Pithoragarh (Uttarakhand).
4. The Director General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, I.T.B.P., New
Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Anand Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (Asg)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 23-01-2023
Re.: I.A. No. 2 of 2022
The present interlocutory application has been filed
for the condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present
appeal.
For the reasons stated in this application, the delay in
filing this appeal is condoned.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2022 dt.23-01-2023
The interlocutory application stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 66 of 2022
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant has been discharged/terminated on
27.10.2018 by invoking Rule 14(2) of the I.T.B.P. Rules,
1994.
The appellant was enrolled as a Constable who had to
complete his probation before being inducted in the regular
service. He could not complete the probation despite the
extension of such period of probation.
The charge against him is of showing intemperate
behaviour towards his colleagues and superior officers during
the training period. At two locations, during the period of
training, he was declared an absconder. Corporal punishment
was also given to him where he was made to do some kind of
pack drill for his intemperate and abusive conduct.
Since the appellant had not completed his probation
and much before that was found to have absquatulated without
any reason, he was discharged from service.
An appeal before the D.I.G. could not succeed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2022 dt.23-01-2023
However, we find from the records that at the stage
of appeal, for the first time, the appellant was issued notice to
explain his inappropriate conduct during the period of
probation.
He replied to such notice but, the explanations were
not found to be good enough to revisit the order of discharge.
Against the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a
writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 16187 of
2019 which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2021, which
is under challenge in the present appeal.
The learned Single Judge, after going through the
counter affidavit of the I.T.B.P. Management, found that the
appellant's record was absolutely unworthy for him to be
retained in the paramilitary force. On many occasions, he was
found to be missing from the training, was found drunk and,
on top of it, had displayed drunken behaviour at times as well.
For some reason or the other, he was given extended
opportunities to complete his probation but to no avail.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single
Judge refused to interfere with the order of discharge,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2022 dt.23-01-2023
notwithstanding that for discharging the appellant, he was not
noticed in the first instance.
Mr. Pranav Kumar submits that since the order of
discharge is stigmatic and there is nothing on record to indicate
that a departmental proceeding could not have been initiated,
such unilateral order of discharge cannot be sustained even in
the garb of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
We do not accede to such argument for the reason
that the appellant had never entered into service which he
would have, had he completed the probation period
successfully.
We have found that in the past, on two occasions,
the appellant went awol without any idea to the employer as to
where he was. In such circumstances also, it was difficult to
issue any notice to him.
Be that as it may, we further find that before the
Appellate Authority, he was made known the charge for which
he was shown the door, to which he had replied but, the reply
was not found to be convincing.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.66 of 2022 dt.23-01-2023
We do not see any reason for interfering with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
On the abovenoted set of facts, the appeal is
dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishi2/rishi-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.01.2023
Transmission Date
