E-Paper
‘No departmental inquiry before sacking’: HC orders reinstatement of CRPF constable
Naveen had approached the high court in 2018 challenging his termination order dated May 19, 2017, and the appellate order dated January 18, 2018, and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has observed that the termination of a CRPF constable, effected without a show-cause notice or departmental inquiry, was punitive in nature and violative of the principles of natural justice, despite being projected as a termination simpliciter.
Naveen had approached the high court in 2018 challenging his termination order dated May 19, 2017, and the appellate order dated January 18, 2018, and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. He was appointed as a provisional constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF) on January 5, 2015, and underwent training at various centres across the country.
During training, he suffered a fracture in his foot while playing volleyball. A court of inquiry found the injury to be accidental and not attributable to any misconduct. Owing to recurring medical problems, he took private treatment on certain occasions as leave was not sanctioned. He completed over two years of service and training.
In April 2017, when his marriage was scheduled, his leave application was again rejected. As a result, he remained absent from duty for three days—from April 26 to April 29, 2017,—solemnised his marriage on April 28, and reported back immediately thereafter. However, the commandant, group centre, CRPF, Gwalior terminated his services on May 19, 2017, by invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, without issuing any show-cause notice or conducting a departmental inquiry.
While the respondents contended that Naveen was a temporary/provisional employee who had repeatedly sought discharge from service and was unsuitable for a disciplined force, the court noted that the respondents themselves justified the termination on allegations of repeated attempts to seek discharge, misleading conduct and unauthorised absence.
The court held that such allegations clearly amounted to imputations affecting the petitioner’s character and suitability for service. “Once the foundation of the termination is misconduct, it cannot be termed as termination simpliciter,” the court observed, adding that it necessarily attracts the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice.
The court further emphasised that even a temporary government servant is entitled to protection against arbitrary and punitive action. It held that Rule 5(1) of the CCS Rules cannot be used as a camouflage to terminate an employee on punitive grounds without affording an opportunity of hearing. The court also found the action unsustainable under Rule 16(a)(1) of the CRPF Rules, observing that the power to discharge during the initial period of engagement cannot be exercised arbitrarily or as a substitute for imposing punishment for alleged misconduct.
Taking note of the petitioner’s service of over two years, the court remarked that the termination appeared “not only harsh but also lacking in due process,” and left the petitioner facing uncertainty and hardship at the very beginning of his career, which weighed heavily on the conscience of the court.
Holding that the impugned termination offended the basic tenets of fairness and natural justice, Justice Sandeep Moudgil, by an order dated December 12, allowed the petition and quashed the termination and appellate orders. The court directed that the petitioner be reinstated with effect from May 19, 2017, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay with 6% interest from the date of accrual till realisation. The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.
