A termination order issued during a probation period, without any misconduct or disciplinary proceedings, is not stigmatic or punitive and does not require a regular inquiry or a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide impugned order dated 15.11.2016 passed by Senior Commanding Officer, 12th BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli (Maharashtra), services of the petitioner have been terminated from the post of Constable under Rule 57.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short “RPF Rules 1987”) while on probation period.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.11.2016, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected by the DIG/R&T, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi vide communication dated 27.4.2017.

3. Petitioner has assailed both the orders before this court on the grounds that the impugned order dated 15.11.2016 is ex facie stigmatic and punitive, and such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharged on the many grounds mentioned in the impugned order without holding proper inquiry and without getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge, which amounts to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this court in the light of following judgments :-

(i) Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 2022 SCC OnLine SC 319

(ii) Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala (2020) 12 SCC 426

(iii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Poornendu Sharma D.B.Spl Appeal Writ No.403/2018 decided on 23.8.2018

5. Per contra, the counsel for respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for petitioner and has raised two preliminary objections, that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 to file Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority. He further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities at the State of Maharashtra, hence this court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain this writ petition. He further submitted that no cause of action or part cause of action has arose in the State of Rajasthan, hence this court shall not entertain this writ petition. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sukhjinder Singh v. Union of India, LPA- 421/2017 (O&M) decided on 4.8.2022. He further submitted that an employee on probation period does not have right to continue the job and his services can be terminated during the period of probation. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CISF v. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507. He submitted that under these circumstances, the interference of this court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. The respondents have taken the preliminary objection that against the impugned order, Revision Petition under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 is maintainable and bypassing the jurisdiction of Revisional Authority, the petitioner has straight away approached this court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is worthy to note here that the petitioner has been discharged by the authority in exercise of its powers under Rule 57.3 of RPF Rules 1987 by treating him as a recruit and did not find him fit to retain in service and he was terminated. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal, but the same has not been decided on its merits and the same was dismissed on a technical ground that as per Rule 148.5(i) of RPF Rules 1987, service of an enrolled member if terminated under Rule 57.3 shall not amount to any punishment. The action under Rule 57.3 is not in the nature of a disciplinary proceedings, hence the appeal was rejected by observing