JUDGMENT

Pathak, J. -- 1. Appellants/State has filed this appeal under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned writ Court in W.P.No. 1621/2016; [Published in 2021 (1) MPWN 68] whereby, learned writ Court allowed the writ petitioner preferred by respondent/petitioner and directed reinstatement of respondent in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent (hereinafter shall be referred as “petitioner”) preferred a petition with the submissions that petitioner was selected on the post of Constable in year 2013 and after selection, petitioner was sent for training. Character verification of the petitioner was conducted. It appears that, petitioner remained absent for about 330 days on the pretext of ailment of his mother and thereafter his poor health, therefore, he did not join the training and despite the fact that information was given to him. In-charge, Training Centre, did not permit the petitioner to join after coming back from unauhorised leave and on 3.8.2015, his services were terminated on the ground of Regulation 59 of M.P. Police Regulation.

3. Petitioner preferred writ petition against the said order of termination and raised the ground of stigma attached to the said order and while relying upon judgments of apex Court in the case of D.K.Yadav v. JMA Industries Ltd. [(1993) 3 SCC 259] and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandi PGI of Medical Sciences and Anr., [(2002) 1 SCC 520], he raised the submission that termination order so passed without opportunity of hearing and conducting enquiry is bad in law.

4. Learned writ Court while passing impugned order quashed the termination order dated 3.8.2015 and order dated 8.2.2016 and directed reinstatement of petitioner with all consequential benefits.

5. Taking exception to the said order appellants/State are in writ appeal.

6. It is the submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants/State that petitioner was on probation and without successful completion of probation period, he does not come under the purview of government employee/servant and it is not mandatory for the State Authority to conduct a full fledged enquiry of such employee before terminating his services. Petitioner was in probation of two years and he remained absent in training for 338 days without intimation the authority and in the uniform department where discipline is paramount, absence without intimation makes him unsuitable for the job. Various notices (Vide R/2 of reply in writ petition) were issued to the petitioner (when he remained absent) calling him to join the duty but he did not prefer to join the same. Such casualness of high magnitude has been considered by the departmental authority and thereafter passed the impugned order.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General referred M.P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 and Regulation 59 of M.P. Police Regulation to bring home the fact that petitioner was a fugitive and because of long absence and his attitude of casualness, he was found unsuitable for the job.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of apex Court in the matter of Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. This is a case, where, petitioner is taking exception to the order of termination dated 3.8.2015 (Annexure P/2 of writ petition). The said impugned order is reproduced for ready reference as under:-

^^vkns'k
okfguh esa inLFk uovkjŒ 803 ;ksxs'k ikBd iq= Jh lrh'kpUæ ikBd] fnukad 17-02-2014 dks uovkjŒ ¼thMh½ ds in ij HkrhZ gqvk gSA ifjoh{kkèkhu vof/k esa mldh