ORDER :

(Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Alina Masoodi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Commandant, 91st Battalion, Group Kendra, Central Reserve Police Force, District Lucknow (opposite party no.4) contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow (opposite party no.2) contained as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is also seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to reinstate him in service on the post of Constable with effect from the date of termination from service i.e. on 3.11.2012 with all consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable by means of order dated 20.8.2011. This appointment order clearly stated that petitioner’s service is purely temporary in nature and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason by giving him one month notice. The petitioner was enlisted on a temporary basis as Constable w.e.f. 16.8.2011. On 4.11.2011, at about 20:45 hours, the petitioner left the police line/camp without any prior intimation, notice and permission of his superiors/competent authority. The petitioner remained absent from 4.11.2011 till 25.11.2011 for 22 days and reported at his own convenience on 26.11.2011 at 09:00 hours. The petitioner, while reporting back on 26.11.2011 at 09:00 hours, has not provided any supporting documents along with his report dated ‘Nil’ wherein he stated that he went to take care of his ailing father. Therefore, the petitioner's services were terminated in exercise of the provisions contained in Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by means of impugned order dated 30.12.2011 and prior to it, one month’s notice was issued to him vide letter no.P.VIII.21/2011-EC-II dated 30.11.2011 through Deputy Commandant (Administration), GC,CRPF, Bijnore, Lucknow (U.P.). Aggrieved by the afroresaid termination order dated 30.12.2011, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was considered and was rejected being time barred by the Appellate Authority vide letter No. R.XIII.33/2012-CS-Adm-3 dated 14.11.2012. Against the aforesaid termination order dated 30.12.2011 and appellate order dated 14.11.2012, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to terminating the services of the petitioner, no reason has been assigned. According to him, termination is a major penalty and it cannot be passed without giving opportunity of hearing and without holding an enquiry. Therefore, the impugned termination order dated 30.12.2011 is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. His submission is that in case the termination order is not quashed, it will take away the right of livelihood of an employee. The impugned order has been passed de horse the principles of natural justice and it has also not been passed in accordance with relevant Rules. He also submitted that the Appellate Authority, while passing the impugned appellate order dated 14.11.2012, has also not considered the matter to the aforesaid effect.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1958 SC36, Purushotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India; 2000 (5) SCC 152, Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. and others; 2000 SCC (3) 239, V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others and 2010 SCC (8) 220, Union of India and others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi.