IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 19541 of 2010

Date of Decision : 8.11.2012

Kuldeep Singh

..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Union of India and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Present:-

Mr. K.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. J.K. Gurna, Central Government Counsel, for respondents.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner has approached this Court, impugning the order dated

13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the Commandant 2^nd Battalion, ITBP

Force-respondent No. 4 whereby the services of the petitioner have been

terminated under Rule 14 of the ITBP Rules, 1994.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned order is totally stigmatic order as before passing the said order no

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. If an order of termination

has to be passed, which is based upon the conduct and which forms the part of

the termination, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of

clarifying his position and the departmental proceedings should have been

initiated against the petitioner for the mis-conduct. That having been not

done, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the

petitioner had not completed probation period and, therefore, no regular

inquiry was required to be initiated against the petitioner. As is apparent from

the impugned order, the conduct of the petitioner was such that he was not fit

for being retained in service as he could not prove himself to be a good officer

of a disciplined force as he has been absenting himself from duty and has not

CWP No. 19541 of 2010

-2-

even completed his training which is mandated under the Rules. Prayer has

thus been made for dismissal of the writ petition. She further contends that

three times, petitioner had submitted resignation which shows his non-interest

in the service. On this basis, it is contended that the impugned order is in

accordance with law and deserves to be sustained.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

Impugned order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-2) which is

challenged by the petitioner, vide which services of the petitioner have been

terminated, indeed is based upon acts and omissions on the part of the

petitioner which would amount to mis-conduct. Since the order of the

termination itself projects mis-conduct which has been committed by the

petitioner, it is not a simple order of discharge which could be passed in the

case of a probationer in exercise of Rule 14 of the ITBP Rules, 1994. The

order being stigmatic which would have adverse affect upon the future

employment prospects of the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained,

especially when no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner for

explaining his position vis-a-vis the mis-conduct attributed to him and which

finds mention in the impugned order.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-P-2) is hereby quashed. Liberty

is however granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in

accordance with law, if so desired.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

JUDGE

8.11.2012

sjks