ANJAY KUMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in 4th Assam Police Task Force Battalion and sent for training. No formal letter of appointment was issued to him except an identity card. He joined the training course with effect from 26.3.2001. During the course of training on 30.8.2001, he was directed to leave the service and released. No formal order of discharge was served on him. The petition is footed on the ground that he has been denied the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner came to know that his discharge was founded on the police verification report which indicted him for being involved in anti-social activities.

(2.) The respondents pleaded that the petitioner was enrolled for the purpose of appointment on successful completion of training and satisfactory police verification report. During the course of training, the police verification report sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSB), Dhubri was received. The report disclosed that the petitioner was involved in Bilashipara PS Case No. 165/ 99 under section 365/34/120B/364A/302 IPC read with section 10/13 UA (P) Act and read with section 27B Arms Act. The petitioner was discharged by an order passed on 29.8.2001 because of this unfavourable police report. It is further pleaded that a trainee Constable is not entitled to any protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

(3.) Rules 19 to 31 of Part III of Assam Police Manual deal with enlistment, appointment and discharge of Constables. Rule 27 provides for an agreement to be executed by the appointee before enlistment undertaking to serve the State for three years. Rule 28 provides for verification rolls of Constables. Rule 28 (b) reads as follows: