The termination order must be issued by a competent authority and in compliance with the specified process under the relevant rules.

1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, the learned Central Govt. counsel.

2. The matter relates to termination of the petitioner, who was recruited as a Constable (GD), CRPF following the selection made on 21.02.2010. The new recruits were required to report to the DIG of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, to accept the offer of appointment and after the selectee duly reported on 07.04.2010, he was appointed in the CRPF and was allotted the Force No.105130116.

3. After the recruitment, the petitioner along with other recruits were deputed for training to the Regional Training Centre (RTC), CRPF, Peringome and the petitioner reported at the training centre on 11.09.2010. While undergoing training, the petitioner fell ill and when the RTC Hospital was unable to cure the Constable, on 01.10.2010, he was referred to the Medical College, Peringome, under the escort of a Head Constable. When he reached the Medical College Hospital, the petitioner’s condition deteriorated and then he tell unconscious and at that point, the escorting Head Constable Chamanlal, deserted him.

4. The petitioner contacted the control room of the RTC and was advised to go back home and to return back upon recovery, to the training centre. But this point is somewhat disputed by the respondents.

5. At his home in U.P., the petitioner received treatment and after he recovered from his illness, he reported back to the RTC on 23.10.2010, but he was denied entry to the centre with direction to report to the Group Centre at Guwahati. As advised, the petitioner reported to the Group Centre, Guwahati on 01.11.2010, but here also, he was denied entry.

6. On his written request to re-join his training, the office of the DIGP, Group Centre on 03.12.2010 (Annexure-A) informed that the Constable’s service was terminated w.e.f. 08.10.2010 by the Principal of the RTC, CRPF, Peringome, under his order dated 08.10.2010. The actual termination order of 08.10.2010 was never personally served to the petitioner, but it was despatched to his home address.

7. But what is relevant to note is that the termination order was issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Service Rules”) read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, whereunder, the termination was made effective forthwith with the declaration that the Constable is entitled to claim one month’s salary. What is equally pertinent about the termination order is that it was not issued by the Principal of the RTC, as was informed to the petitioner on 03.12.2010, but it was issued by a Commandant without identifying the battalion of which, he is the Commandant.

8.1. The petitioner questions the legality of the termination order by projecting that during the duration of training, the disciplinary authority is the Principal of the RTC under Rule 5(3)(b) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and hence the impugned order was not passed by a competent authority.

8.2. While the Commandant of the concerned battalion is the appointment/disciplinary authority for the Constables in the battalion, the signatory of the termination order never specified which battalion he is commanding and therefore the learned counsel submits that unless the concerned Commandant is relatable to the battalion in which the Constable is attached, the termination by any other Commandant, will be wholly incompetent under Rule 5(3)(b) of the CRPF Rules.

8.3. Mr. R. Mazumdar, the learned counsel refers to the proviso to Rule 5(1)(b) of the Temporary Service Rules to project that while termination with one month’s notice in writing is permissible under Rule 5(1)(a) & (b) read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, the dispensation of one month’s notice to immediately terminate service by tendering one month’s salary, is not provided in the provisions quoted in the impugned order of the C