The appointing authority must pass the termination order under the relevant rules, and similarly situated temporary employees should be treated equally.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Bhatt

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the papers.

2. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. Petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of the office order No. R-II-1(a)/2006-118-ESTT-III dated 4.4.2006 issued by the respondent-authorities, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated under Rule 5(1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. It is further prayed that petitioner may be reinstated with consequential benefits.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as CRPF Constable on 11.3.2003. Thereafter, notice for termination was given to him on 9.3.2006 and the services of the petitioner was ordered to be terminated vide order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure-3). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order, with regard to termination, is passed in clear contravention and violation of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as the officer who has passed the order was not the appointing authority.

5. While referring counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that services of four personnel of this unit were ordered to be terminated as they were found medically unfit during the course of fresh medical examination conducted at Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bantalab (Jammu) during August/September, 2005. It is submitted that out of these four personnel, three personnel preferred writ petition before this Court challenging the termination order passed by the respondents by way of filing W.P.(S) No. 3482 of 2006. After considering the facts and circumstances involved in the said matter, this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the order of termination and the petitioners of that petition were ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% salary for the intervening period.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3482 of 2006. It is submitted that judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No. 3482 of 2006 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the order passed by the respondents terminating the service of the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondents, while referring counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that the service of the petitioners were terminated as they were declared medically unfit by the medical examination board. It is further submitted that the petitioners were referred to Base Hospital-I, CRPF, New Delhi by the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bantalab (Jammu) vide letter dated 3.9.2005 for special test or examination of poor eye vision and after medical examination, they were declared unfit and that is why the decision was taken vide order dated 16.2.2006 directing to terminate the services of the four personnel of this unit as they were found medically unfit during the course of fresh medical examination.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the service of the petitioner was not confirmed under the relevant rules and therefore, his services was terminated after giving one month's notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that as per Rule-7B of the CRPF Rules, 1955, Commandant is the appointing authority to the rank of Constable in the force and therefore, it is submitted that contention raised by the petitioner that the Commandant is not the appointing authority is not correct.

9. Learned Counsel for the r