IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of a probationer from service is not punitive if based on unsuitability, and non-furnishing of an inquiry report does not automatically vitiate the discharge unless prejudice is shown.

JUDGMENT

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner filed O.A.No.775 of 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench seeking to set aside Annexure A1 order by which the respondent discharged the petitioner from the Indian Police Service (IPS). He was a probationer. The Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order dated 07.06.2023 dismissed the original application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this original petition invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner was selected as a Member of the Indian Police Service in the examination held in 2014. After completing the training, he was allotted to the Tamil Nadu cadre and appointed as a probationer in Tirunelveli District. He attended the Civil Service Examination in 2017. His examination centre was Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School, Egmore, Chennai. On 30.10.2017, he reached the examination centre at about 8.40 a.m. He allegedly avoided frisking at the entrance and entered the classroom. On getting information about an attempt to malpractice during the examination, the candidates in the room where the petitioner was one among the candidates, were rechecked. On frisking by the DCP, a cell phone, a typed note and certain electronic gadgets, such as bluetooth, wireless earplug and an electric wired circuit were found in the possession of the petitioner. A statement was taken from him by the examiner-in-charge.

3. A crime was registered against the petitioner from Egmore Police Station and he was arrested. His wife, who was trying to supply answers using the aforementioned electronic devices was also arrested and implicated in that crime. People who aided them were also added as accused. Offences under Sections 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were alleged. The petitioner was placed under suspension. He was issued a show cause notice, Annexure A5 as to why he should not be discharged from the service. An enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the report in Annexure R3, the respondent issued Annexure A1 order discharging the petitioner.

4. The petitioner challenged Annexure A1 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.775 of 2019 on various grounds. The respondent filed a reply producing therewith Annexures R1 to R3. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, along with Annexures A15 to A25. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and documents, and hearing both sides found as per Ext.P4 that the challenge against Annexure A1 could not be entertained. The petitioner assails Ext. P4 order on various grounds, both legal and factual in this original petition.

5. Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel, appeared on instructions for the petitioner and Sri.A.R.L. Sundaresan (Sr), the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent.

6. The petitioner passed the preliminary test of the Civil Service Examination, 2017, and was appearing in the main examination scheduled to be held from 28.10.2017 till 03.11.2017. The incident in question occurred on 30.10.2017. The fact that the petitioner reached the examination hall on 30.10.2017 and there occurred a frisking after the candidates entered the examination hall on that day is not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner is that he avoided frisking at the entrance claiming to be a probationary IPS Officer and when a frisking was conducted later based on a tip-off, a cell phone, a typed note, and electronic devices were found concealed by the petitioner. In respect of the said malpractice a crime was registered against him at the Police Station, Egmore in Chennai. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Since he was in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension.

7. The Deputy Se