BIPLAB MAZUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and he was deputed for initial training at JR/RPF Academy at Lucknow. After such initial training he went through some practical training of SIPF (Executive). He was then posted as Sub-Inspector, RPF at CIB/HQ and attached to Computer Cell with effect from 1.12,.99 and he was to remain on probation for a period of 2 years. On 19.8.2000, the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Fancy Bazar Branch, Guwahati lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Panbazar Police Station alleging that the Kohima Branch had issued a Bank Draft dated 10.8.2000 for Rs. 100.00 in favour of the petitioner but the Bank Draft was fraudulently altered by using some chemical to Rs. 1,00,000/- and presented for payment at Fancy Bazar Branch by the petitioner along with some other documents. Pursuant to the said FIR, Panbazar Police Station Case No. 253/2000 under Sections 468/420/34, IPC, has been registered on 21.8.2000. The petitioner was arrested and was released on bail by this court on 12.9.2000 in Bail Application No. 155/2000. By an order dated 29.8.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon, the petitioner was placed under suspension for involvement in the aforesaid PS case. The said order of suspension was revoked with effect from 22.11.2000. But the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 24.11.2000 of the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Maligaon. In the said order of termination it has been stated that the Chief Security Commissioner was of the opinion that the petitioner who was under probation was not fit for permanent appointment. Aggrieved by the said order of termination from service, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief.

(2.) Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitigner, submitted that the impugned order of termination was arbitrary and punitive and has been passed on the allegations made in the FIR alleged by the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank. He submitted that the petitioner though a probationer could not have been terminated from service without following the principles of natural justice but admittedly the principles of natural justice have not been followed before the impugned order of termination was passed. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of VP Ahuja Vs State of Punjab, (2000) 3 SCC 239. He further submitted that rule 162 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short the "Rules") provides for the procedure to be followed in case of conviction by a criminal Court but the said procedure has not been followed in the present case. He submitted that the Inspector, RPF, CIB/NFR under whom the petitioner was working on probation has submitted his report to the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, NF Railways, in which he has, inter alia, stated that the petitioner has worked sincerely and in disciplined manner during his tenure in Computer Cell and he did not find anything adverse in his working or in his behaviour during office hours. According to him, in view of the said report of the immediate superior of the petitioner with regard to his performance, the impugned order of termination on the ground that the petitioner was unfit for permanent appointment could not have been passed.

(3.) In reply, Mr. BK Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the Railways, submitted that under rule 57.3 of the Rules, the appointing authority has the power to terminate a probationer if he is of the opinion that the probationer is not fit for permanent appointment. He argued that since the appointing authority had come to learn about the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case, he was of the opinion that the petitioner was not fit for permanent appointment in the RPF and for this reason he passed the impugned order of termination. In reply to the submission made by Mr. Lahiri submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the appointing authority without complying with the principles of natural justice, he submitted that a reading of the impugned order of termination would show that it is not stigmatic and that this is a case of termination simpliciter. He cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs Gopi Kishore, AIR 1960 SC 689', Dipti Prakash Benarjee Vs, Satyendra Nath Boss National Center of Basic Science, (1999) 3 SCC 60 and Radheshyam Gupta Vs UP State Agro Industries Corporation, (1999) 2 SCC 21, for the proposition that where the employer simply terminates the service of a probationer without any stigma, the employer is not required to comply with the principles of natural justice even though the real motive behind the removal from service may have been that his employer thought him to be unsuitable for the post which he was temporarily holding. Mr. Sharma also referred to the provisions of rule 148.5 of the Rules to show that the termination of service of an enrolled member of RPF during the period of probation in accordance with sub-rule 3 of rule 57 of the Rules does not amount to punishment within the meaning of rule 148 of the Rules.