Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Manish Choudhury, J.
Hitesh Talukdar - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4150 of 2019
Decided On : 01-02-2021
Resignation - Reinstatement - CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF Rules, 1955, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The court set aside the discharge order and rejection of reinstatement, directing the petitioner's reinstatement in service. The court found that the resignation was not voluntary and was accepted hastily, disregarding the mandatory notice period. The appointing authority failed to consider relevant factors and took irrelevant ones into account, breaching the guidelines. The court held that the discharge order and rejection of reinstatement were unsustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the CRPF, submitted a resignation letter due to domestic problems, which was hastily accepted. After facing severe financial constraints, he sought reinstatement. The appointing authority rejected the reinstatement, leading to the petitioner approaching the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was not voluntary and was accepted hastily, disregarding the mandatory notice period. The appointing authority failed to consider relevant factors and took irrelevant ones into account, breaching the guidelines. The court held that the discharge order and rejection of reinstatement were unsustainable in law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation, the rejection of his reinstatement, and the compliance with relevant legal provisions and guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the resignation was not voluntary and was accepted hastily, disregarding the mandatory notice period. The appointing authority failed to consider relevant factors and took irrelevant ones into account, breaching the guidelines. The court held that the discharge order and rejection of reinstatement were unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the discharge order and rejection of reinstatement, directing the petitioner's reinstatement in service. The period from the date of discharge till reinstatement will be notionally treated to be on duty, but back-wages should not be paid for the interregnum since no service was received during this period.
JUDGMENT
Manish Choudhury, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing two orders dated 07.08.2018 and 26.09.2018 and seeking setting aside of the afore-mentioned two orders. The petitioner has also sought for a direction for his re-instatement in the post of Head Constable, General Duty in the Central Reserve Police Force ('the CRPF' or 'the Force', for short).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Constable, CRPF on 04.07.2000 and after joining the service in the Force, he completed the necessary training. Thereafter, he continued to serve the Force at different places. Because of his sincerity in service, he was selected for SPG in the CRPF and he discharged such duties from 2008 to 2015. In the year 2016, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable (HC)/General Duty (GD) and was posted in 68 Bn, CRPF at Tinsukia.
2.1. Because of some compelling situation, the petitioner had to submit a letter of resignation addressed to the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF on 06.08.2018 and the same was forwarded through the Officer Commanding, B/68 Bn, CRPF. On receipt of the said application, the same was forwarded by the Officer Commanding, B/68 Bn, CRPF to the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF on 06.08.2018 itself. In the said application, the petitioner stated that due to some domestic problems he had been facing, he was tendering resignation voluntarily from service so as to sort out the domestic problems. The resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF immediately on the same day, 06.08.2018 and immediately on the next day, an office order dated 07.08.2018 was passed to that effect.
2.2. The petitioner after submitting resignation, realized that instead of resolution of the problems, the situation became more complicated in the domestic front and he and his family members had to face financial constraints. Showing his willingness to join the Force again, the petitioner submitted an application before the Director General of Police, CRPF on 07.09.2018. On receipt of the application of the petitioner dated 07.09.2018 seeking his re-instatement, the office of the Inspector General of Police, North West Sector, CRPF forwarded the same to the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF vide his letter dated 07.09.2018 with the request to examine the matter in terms of Rule 26(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ['the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972', for short] and to take a decision as the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF was the appointing authority for the petitioner, Ex-HC/GD.
2.3. The Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF thereafter, stated to have considered the matter of reinstatement of the petitioner and by his order dated 26.09.2018, the prayer for re-instatement of the petitioner into his earlier post of HC/GD was rejected. On being aggrieved by the said two orders of the Commandant, 68 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director General, CRPF on 25.10.2018 praying for re-consideration of the matter of his reinstatement. The decision about not re-instating the petitioner in the post of HC/GD was further reiterated by another communication dated 17.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned hereinabove.
3. I have heard Mr. N. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Deb Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI) for all the respondents.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was facing some domestic problems since a long time and the situation got aggravated during the month of August, 2018. During the said period, he had also faced some unwanted situation in his battalion. The Company Commandant getting annoyed with the petitioner on some issues, asked him to write resignation and to give his domestic problem as the reason behind such resignation. Finding the situation diffic
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resignation of a member of the CRPF should not be accepted hastily, disregarding the mandatory notice period, and the appointing authority....
Point of Law : Petitioner had not rendered any service during this period, question of the petitioner getting any benefits for said period such as salary, promotion, etc. would not arise.
The resignation of police personnel requires a two months' notice per the Police Act and cannot be conditional; thus, any resignation not meeting these requirements is invalid.
: Petitioner has been terminated on the ground of his being surplus in the Force which is not in consonance with principles of law.
The discretion vests with the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment commensurate with the nature of the offense proved, and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court.
Resignation cannot be accepted during a pending departmental enquiry, and unauthorized absence from duty can lead to removal from service.
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
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
