Rajasthan High Court
Saroj Kumari vs Central Reserve Police Ors on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11428/2012
Saroj Kumari Saini D/o Shri Bahadur Mal Saini, aged 23 years,
R/o Village & Post Khadra, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Reserve Police Force through D.I.G.P., G.C.-I, Ajmer
(Raj.)
2. Commandant-213 (M) BN, Central Reserve Police Force
through, G.C.-II, Campus, Foy Sagar Raod, Ajmer (Raj.)
3. Co. Commander, D-213 (M) BN, Central Reserve Police
Force through, G.C.-II, campus, Foy Sagar Raod, Ajmer
(Raj.)
4. Inspector General of Police (I.G.), North Area, Central
Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
5. Inspector General of Police (I.G.), West Area, Central
Reserve Police Force, C.B.D., Belapur, New Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
12/12/2022
1. The present civil writ petition is filed challenging the
termination order dated 28.03.2011 and the Appellate Authority,
order dated 20.01.2012.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was selected as per the prescribed procedure. The
petitioner had to undergo a training of ten months, but due to
illness the petitioner could not attend training for a period of 2-3
(2 of 4) [CW-11428/2012]
days and therefore, petitioner was terminated vide order dated
28.03.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner was terminated
without issuance of any termination notice. It is contended that as
there is violation of principles of natural justice, the termination
order is non est. Moreover, for short absenteeism, that too for
medical reasons, major punishment like termination from service
cannot be imposed and the petitioner should be reinstated.
3. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2011) 10 Scale 258 to submit that major
penalty like termination from service may be imposed for serious
misconduct, but for minor absenteeism, such major punishment is
not warranted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied
upon the impugned order dated 20.01.2012, Annexure-5. He has
submitted that petitioner was ignorant in her training, was
mentally and physically unfit. The petitioner had failed twice and
therefore, was further accommodated into second and junior batch
for training. However, even after that, she did not improve her
conduct. The petitioner was even presented before the Adjutant of
the Battalion, who personally advised her to improve her
behaviour. She was also given several warnings to improve her
conduct. Even the petitioner's father and sister were called to
advice the petitioner to take interest in the training. But despite all
efforts made by the respondents, the petitioner used to habitually
remain absent from training. Therefore, considering the
petitioner's indiscipline, a notice / order for termination from
service dated 27.02.2011 was issued and served upon the
petitioner (Marked as Annexure-R/3) and in pursuance of the said
(3 of 4) [CW-11428/2012]
notice, the petitioner was terminated vide order dated
28.03.2011, after giving one month's notice, in pursuance to Sub
Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rule,
1965 ("CCS (TS) Rules") read with Rule 16 (a) of The Central
Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 ("CRPF Rules"). It is submitted
that the termination order is a simplicity order and not punitive or
stigmatic and appeal against the same has already been rejected
by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.01.2012.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Apex
Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.
Vs. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507, Maan Singh Vs.
Union of India and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 464, Union
of India and Ors. Vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in
(2005) 13 SCC 709 and Union of India Vs. P.Gunasekaran
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides scanned
the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited
as above.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that
petitioner was an unfit candidate who failed twice in the training.
It is also observed that the petitioner was belligerent and used to
actively defy orders of her superior. The petitioner was given
several opportunities to improve her conduct, but inspite of
repeated reformative actions, the petitioner did not change her
attitude. The petitioner was ignorant in training, failed twice and
had to be accommodated with junior batch. After considering the
conduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed
simpliciter dismissal order after considering the facts that the
petitioner was posted in a uniformed department where discipline
(4 of 4) [CW-11428/2012]
is of utmost importance. The termination order was also passed
following due procedure.
8. It has time and again been held that under writ jurisdiction,
scope of interference in service matter is limited. The writ Court
can only interfere when there is perversity. The writ Court cannot
convert itself to second court of first appeal and cannot re-
appreciate evidence or finding of disciplinary authority. Members
of uniformed forces cannot absent themselves for no reason,
having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these forces.
Discipline is of paramount importance in uniformed forces. In the
instant case, there was a simpliciter termination order passed
after considering the conduct and the unauthorized absence.
Appeal against the same was also dismissed.
9. In view of the above and considering the concurrent findings,
this Court does not find any perversity or palpable error in the
impugned orders and therefore no interference is called for.
Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court judgment of Union of
India vs Managobinda Samantary (Civil Appeal Nos. 1622-
1623 of 2022). The judgments relied upon by counsel for the
respondents are also squarely applicable.
10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ARTI SHARMA /28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
