The special law prevails over the general law, and the challenge to a notice and order of termination is not affected by the doctrine of merger.

JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. In the instant intra court appeal, appellants herein have challenged the judgment dated 25.10.2016, passed in SWP No. 1121/2012, titled Altaf Ahmad Mir vs. Union of India and Others, whereby the writ Court, while allowing the petition, has quashed the impugned termination notice of the services of the petitioner bearing No. DV-1/2012-DA.I dated 25.02.2012, issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by the DIGP, ATC, CRPF, Bhopal, as well as the termination order No. DV-1/2012-DA.I dated 28.03.2012. However, it has been provided that the respondents-appellants would be free to hold such proceedings against the petitioner-respondent as are permissible under the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Act, 1965, and the rules framed thereunder, giving respondent herein an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing and to defend himself in any such proceedings.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The respondent is stated to have been selected and temporarily appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in terms of order no. R-II-22/2011/Estt-5 issued in June, 2011 by the DIGP, GC, CRPF, Rambagh, Srinagar, Kashmir, on the terms and conditions detailed out in the said order of appointment. The respondent joined service against the post on 25.06.2011 and was deputed for undergoing training course at Bangrasla, Bhopal. While the petitioner was undergoing the training, he fell ill and was referred to a local hospital at Bhopal on 13.02.2012.

2.1 According to the respondent, he suffered severe pain and narrated his difficulties to the immediate officers who asked him to return to his home. The respondent went back to his home for better medical care.

2.2 Thereafter, in order to resume his training/duties, he states to have reported back at the training camp on 22.02.2012, but was not allowed to resume his training. Resultantly, he returned to his home where his health worsened and he was admitted in a local hospital. He left for Bhopal on 03.03.2012, along with his father and brother but, on reaching the training camp, he was again denied permission to resume his duties and training course. As per the respondent, he returned on 07.03.2012 and received the impugned notice No. DV-I/2012-DA.I dated 25.02.2012, issued by the DIGP, ATC, CRPF, Bhopal.

2.3 The respondent filed an appeal for reinstatement in service and thereafter, he received the impugned order No. DV-I/2012-DA.I dated 28.03.2012, by virtue of which his name from the strength of GC SNR/ATC GC CRPF, Bhopal, was struck off with effect from 28.03.2012. The termination order dated 28.03.2012 issued by respondent No. 03, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:

OFFICE ORDER: TERMINATION FROM SERVICE

“In continuation to this office one month’s termination notice of order dated 25.02.2012.”

2. Termination notice issued vide this notice ibid, a period of one month has already completed on 27.03.2012. Accordingly No. 115343026 RT/GD Altaf Ahmed Mir, who recruited at GC CRPF, Mokamehghat) and presently undergoing basic training at this institution struck off from the strength of GC SNR/ATC GC CRPF, Bhopal w.e.f. 28.03.2012 (AN).”

2.4 The absence of respondent was neither deliberate, nor intentional, but had occasioned due to his health problems as he was operated upon on 21.03.2012, at Sub-District Hospital, Kupwara, where he remained under treatment, to which effect the Surgeon of the Hospital has issued a certificate in his favour.

3. The appellants, in their reply affidavit, filed in opposition to the writ petition, had taken three preliminary objections, the first one being that the respondent has alternative, efficacious remedy available to him which he has not invoked; the second being that he repeatedly deserted the service without any notice to the respondents, thus, his services were terminated on account of being a willful and intentional deserter; and