Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 17097 of 2022 & CM Appl. 54254 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's termination process and appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the termination orders and subsequent actions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's status during probation. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's dismissal of the petition. (Para 7 , 8) |
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 18.09.2015, 09.09.2015 and 31.12.2014; directions to the respondents to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated 18.09.2015, 09.09.2015 and 31.12.2014; restoration of the service of petitioner along with all benefits from the date of his termination till the date of restoration; directions to the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in other department to the post equivalent to the rank of the petitioner along with cost of petition in favour of the petitioner.
2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents failed to give ample opportunities to the petitioner to file explanation prior to passing order resulting in termination of the petitioner from the strength of 57th Bn SSB Amritpur, Nainital, Uttarakhand vide order dated 31.12.2014. The ground of unsuitability was assigned by the respondents, however, so-called impugned orders do not come within the purview of unsuitability.
3. Respondents have erred while passing the impugned orders as there is no whisper about limitation of chances for BRTC in whole, the Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009. Further, respondents have even failed to consider that relegation from 16th BRTC, Gorakhpur is prior to 30 days, i.e. from 20.02.2014 to 11.03.2014 (19 days only).
4. The submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner before the competent authorities and the averments made in the present petition have been dealt with by the order dated 06.01.2015 which is reproduced as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT
57TH BATTALION, SSB, AMRITPUR,
DISTT. NAINITAL (UTTRAKHAND)-263126
No.V/ESTT/PF/SK/57TH BN/SSB/14-261-72 DATED 06.01.2015
Subject: ORDER FOR TERMINATION/STRUCKING OFF FROM SERVICE
Whereas you No.S/120029774 RCT/GD Sanjay Kumar were given offer of appointment for the post of CT/GD vide FHQ, SSB New Delhi Memorandum No.2/31/12/SSB(SSC)/RECTT.CT/GD/PER-II/19549-19551 dated. 16/05/2014 specifying the terms and conditions.
And whereas you, No.S/120029774 RCT/GD Sanjay Kumar were appointed as CT/GD on 14/06/2012 and posted to 57TH Bn SSB Madgaon at Jamnagar.
And whereas you have been detailed to undergo 5th BRTC Course at ATC Jamnagar w.e.f. 16/07/2012 to 18/05/2013 but you failed to qualify BRTC as you absconded from training centre on 02/10/2012 (FN) and declared deserter vide 57th Bn SSB Office Order No.E-I/ABSC/RCT/GD/SK/57TH/SSB/12/-3758-64 dated 01/12/2014.
And whereas you reported at 57th Bn/ATC, SSB Jamnagar on 28/01/2013 after absenting yourself for 118 days w.e.f. 02/10/2012 to 27/01/2013 and allowed to join at 57th Bn SSB Jamnagar vide 57th Bn SSB Jamnagar (Gujrat) letter No.E-I/DISCP-CORRES/57TH/JMN/12536-42 dated 28/01/2013 (Copy enclosed) and you were relegated from Basic training from ATC Jamnagar on account of absenting yourself for more than 30 days from training.
And whereas you were again detailed to undergo BRTC at RTC SSB Gorakhpur as 2nd Chance w.e.f. 23/12/2013 vide 57th Bn SSB Jeolikote letter No.TRG/302/BRTC/57TH BN/SSB/13-10841-46 dated 20/12/2013.
And whereas you proceeded on 10 days E.L. w.e.f. 26/02/2014 to 07/03/2014 on ground of self treatment and failed to join at RTC SSB Gorakhpur on 07/03/2014.
And whereas two re-joining notices were issued by RTC SSB Gorakhpur to you to join Basic training vide RTC Gorakhpur Memo No.EB/III/A-REPORT/RTC/SSB/GKP/13/4147-53 dated 10/03/2014 and EB/III/A-REPORT/RTC/SSB/GKP/13/4642-44 dated 18/03/2014.
And whereas despite Re-joining notices you remained absent from Basic training and you were relegat
Termination upheld due to failure to complete mandatory training and procedural validity under service rules. No procedural impropriety found in termination process.
Termination due to medical unfitness requires adherence to due process, including a proper medical assessment, and cannot unjustly discriminate against similarly situated individuals.
Termination of service under Sashastra Seema Bal Rules requires a discretionary assessment of individual circumstances, emphasizing that procedural compliance and inability due to external factors mu....
The appellate authority must exercise its statutory duty quasi-judicially, considering all relevant materials and providing proper reasoning. Failure to do so would vitiate the order.
: Petitioner has been terminated on the ground of his being surplus in the Force which is not in consonance with principles of law.
The significance of the offer of appointment and the requirement for satisfactory completion of the probation period for confirmation.
A probationer cannot claim deemed confirmation unless explicitly provided by rules; non-stigmatic termination does not require formal inquiry, and citing a wrong legal provision does not invalidate a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
