SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Gau) 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ITANAGAR BENCH)
H.N. Sarma, J.
Hikki Miwu – Appellants
Vs.
State of Arunachal Pradesh and another – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 317 (AP) of 2004
Decided On: 16.06.2005

Important Points

The main legal point established in the judgment is that probationers' services cannot be terminated without following the disciplinary rules and procedures, and an opportunity of hearing is required before terminating services based on alleged misconduct during probation.

Subject

Employment Law - Probationary Services and Termination

Headnote

Termination - Probationary Services - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 - [Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999] - The court discussed the termination of probationary services of constables under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999. It highlighted the requirement for an opportunity of hearing before terminating services based on alleged misconduct during probation and emphasized the need to follow the disciplinary rules and procedures provided in the Police Service Rules 1999.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, appointed as constables, were terminated from their probationary services by the Principal of the Police Training Centre for alleged misconduct without following the disciplinary rules and procedures.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination of the petitioners' services without following the disciplinary rules and procedures was not sustainable. It held that the impugned termination order was liable to be set aside and quashed.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 to the petitioners, the authority of the Principal of the Police Training Centre to terminate their services, and the requirement for an opportunity of hearing before terminating services based on alleged misconduct during probation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that services of probationers cannot be terminated without holding any enquiry or without issuing any show cause notice in case of alleged misconduct. It also highlighted the need to follow the disciplinary rules and procedures provided in the Police Service Rules 1999.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned termination order was quashed. The court observed that the order would not debar the respondent authorities from proceeding in accordance with the law based on the alleged misconduct.

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:T. Michi, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:B.L. Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, on behalf of the State Respondents.

2. The Petitioners herein having been duly selected in a recruitment test conducted by the authority were appointed as Constables against existing vacancies of 1st & 2nd Indian Reserve Battalions under Arunachal Pradesh Police Department in the scale of pay of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400/- p.m. vide order No. PHQ/ESTTA/RCT/IRBN/8/02 dated 8.1.2003. Continuation of the services of the Petitioners were subject to the following conditions as incorporated in the respective appointment orders:

(a) Successful completion of basic training.

(b) The appointment is purely temporary and may be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereof.

(c) They will be on probation for a period of two years.

(d) They are required to serve in RBN only & anywhere in the district and places of Arunachal Pradesh, in any State/UT of India and in anywhere they are posted and detailed.

(e) They are required to serve at least for three years from the date of joining, unless they are discharged or dismissed or certified by a civil surgeon to be unfit for such service. If the individual resigns before the expiry of the said three years, he has to refund the cost of training and i.e. pay drawn during the period he was under training plus the expenses of T.A. to join the training school.

(f) They have to undergo Police basic training at recognized Police Training Centre as ordered by the authority concerned.

3. In terms of the aforesaid appointment, the Petitioners were sent for training at Police Training Centre at Banderdewa and they were participating in such training. Vide order No. PTC/ESTT/2nd IRBN/03 dated 04.10.2003, the Principal of the Police Training Centre, Banderdewa terminated the services of the Petitioners. A common termination order was issued in respect of the Petitioners. The said order, in respect of Mr. Hikki Miwu in WP(C) 317 (AP) 2004, is quoted herein below:

ORDER

In pursuance of the Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I Shri. R. Yomcha, IPS, Principal, PTC, Banderdewa hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri. Hikki Miwu, Recruit constable of 2nd IRBN, AP and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawn them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

Sd/-

(R. Yomcha) IPS

Principal

Police Training Centre

Banderdewa

4. Against the aforesaid termination order 4.10.2003, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, the appointing authority, requesting him to revoke the aforesaid impugned order of termination. But no action was taken. Hence, this writ petition.

5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of he State Respondents. In the said affidavit at paragraph-5, it is stated as follows:

That with reference to the statement made in Para 4 of the petition, the statement and submits that a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner and 6 others vide Bihupuria PS Vase No. 337 of 2003 dated 04.10.2003 Under Section 147/149/324/ 326/307 IPC. As per the investigation conducted by Bihupuria Police, on 03.10.2003 at about 12.55 PM, the Petitioner and 6 others while under training at PTC Banderdewa came out from PTC Banderdewa to Puja Mandap, Banderdewa armed with deadly weapons suddenly attacked the public without any reason. As a result 3 persons were seriously injured and the left hand of another one was chopped off, who later succumbed to the injuries. The Petitioner and his other accomplices were arrested on 5.10.2003 and remanded to judicial custody who were later on released on bail on 27.11.2003. After the investigation, the aforesai
















1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top