CHINTU KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner was the probationer constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police -7, Hazaribagh who has been removed from service by the impugned order dated 24th March 2004 (Annexure -2) and the appeal preferred by him has also been rejected as being grossly barred by delay vide order dated 20th April 2005, which has been communicated to the petitioner as well (Annexure -5).

(2.) IT is the respondent's case that during his probation, the petitioner was sent for training, but without grant of any leave, he absconded from there on 19th December 2002 and he returned on 31st January 2003 after lapse of 44 days, although he was appointed only on 19th September 2002 on probation on the post of Constable. The aforesaid fact along with stern warning was mentioned in his service book by Force Order No. 158/03. He was again sent for training and he again absconded from training centre on 28th February 2004 and he was put under suspension by the Head of the training centre vide order dated 01st March 2004. Thereafter, petitioner returned on 11th February 2005 after lapse of more than eleven months and he did not improve his conduct and for which he was removed from service by the impugned order dated 24th March 2004 under the provisions of Rule 668 (a) of Bihar Police Manual which was applicable to the case of the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER having heard counsel for the parties and in the facts situation which have been brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was the probationer and had remained absent unauthorizedly for considerably period without sanction of leave by the respondents. On the first occasion, he was given stern warning and even on being sent on duty thereafter, he left his duty without any intimation for leave and reported after eleven months. The petitioner being the probationer, respondents have invoked the relevant provisions of Bihar Police Manual to remove him from service because of his repeated absence from duty and therefore, it cannot be found fault with. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner's memorial is pending before the respondent authorities which he may be allowed to pursue. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as no illegality has been made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.