IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge from service must adhere to procedural requirements, including adequate warnings and documentation, as stipulated in the governing rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) :

An order dated 21.04.2021 by which the petitioner, who was serving as Recruit/Plumber has been discharged from service is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. As per the facts projected, in a recruitment held, the petitioner was successful and was provisionally appointed as Plumber vide an order dated 19.11.2019 in the Assam Rifles. In the said letter of provisional appointment, it was specifically mentioned that on the failure to successfully complete the recruit training within the stipulated period, his services was liable to be terminated without any notice or assigning any reasons. It is the case of the petitioner that the statute holding the field namely, the Assam Rifle Rules, 2010 contain the provision of Discharge. As per Rule 21, before discharging a person on account of unsatisfactory service, he has to be given adequate warning and sufficient time to show progress. The Rule also stipulates that there should be documentary evidence to justify such discharge. It is the case of the petitioner that in violation of the aforesaid provision, namely, Rule 21 (2), the impugned order has been passed.

3. I have heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri P.S. Lahkar, learned C.G.C., who submits that the affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on 29.04.2022.

4. Ms. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner tried to redress his grievance by filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 21.04.2021 and the said appeal was also not responded to. She has also contended that the recourse of the Right to Information Act was taken in spite of which no information was received.

5. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that certain tabulation has been annexed therein from which it would appear that the petitioner was not fairly dealt with. It is submitted that no justification or adequate reasons have been cited for discharging the petitioner. It is also submitted that the materials on record would show that the finding arrived at regarding the petitioner being unsuccessful is also belied by the fact that the petitioner appears to have been crossed the initial stages and has reached the stage of DIG’s Check Test. It is also contended that no suitable warning as per Rule 21 (2) was given to the petitioner and the impugned order is not supported by any documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the impugned order of discharge dated 21.04.2021 be interfered with and a direction be issued for allowing the petitioner to undergo the test for confirmation of his service.

6. Per contra, Shri Lahkar, the learned C.G.C., by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 29.04.2022 has submitted that the provisions of Rule 21 (2) of the Rules of 2010 have been duly complied with. It is submitted that on 23.12.2019, the petitioner had joined the Assam Rifles as a recruit Plumber and thereafter, the training started. As per the norms, such a trainee is given 22 (Twenty Two) weeks to pass the Physical Proficiency Test (PPT) and 23 (Twenty Three) weeks to pass the Battle Physical Efficiency Test (BPET). It is only when a recruit is successful in the aforesaid 2 (two) tests, he attains the stage of DIG’s Check Test. In case a recruit is not able to clear the first two aspects of PPT and BPET, he is given further time.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner had failed to qualify in the PPT and BPET and therefore, as per the norms, he was supposed to get 2 (two) further weeks. However, since the next batch was not yet ready, the petitioner got extra time and he had applied for the second chance on 16.11.2020 where again he had failed. After 9 (nine) weeks, the petitioner was given a third chance on 10.03.2021, wherein also he