IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2524 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar Thakur SON OF SRI KAMESHWAR THAKUR RESIDENT OF BALAON, P.S. DARAULI, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2 01/07/2011 Admitted position with regard to the present dispute is that the petitioner was a probationer undergoing training in what is known as Nath Nagar Police Training Centre in the district of Bhagalpur. The post on which the petitioner was appointed was the post of Sub Inspector of Police. During the course of training, one of the trainee Sub Inspector of Police died during the course of treatment at I.G.I.M.S., Patna. Because of rumour floating on the campus as to the circumstance of death of the trainee, it led to violence and act of indiscipline which was indulged by many a persons who were undergoing training at the relevant time. Petitioner was also one of the probationers. When the matter was enquired into, it transpired that the petitioner had a role in instigating and leading other probationers to indulge in serious acts of indiscipline due to the death in question. - 2 - The above pre-background compelled the authorities to zero down on the persons who were responsible for such unruly acts and it was decided in the wisdom of the authorities that they should invoke powers under Rule 668-A of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978. The powers are there to terminate the services of probationers. The termination order issued was order of termination, simplicitor. This Court does not have to go into catena of decisions with regard to the right of a probationer to continue on the post as well as the right of an employer to terminate them during the period of probation, whatever be the evolution in service jurisprudence. This basic principles have not undergone any drastic change. Probationers can be terminated if the employer is not satisfied for whatever reason with regard to their conduct, behaviour or the quality of training they have acquired during the period of probation. Termination order led to filing of earlier writ application. Petitioner was also one of the persons who moved in C.W.J.C. No. 17523 of 2009. The learned Single Judge decided to remand the matter back to the - 3 - authorities for re-consideration on the ground urged at the Bar that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in matter of award of punishment. According to the petitioner discrimination had been practiced while terminating the services of some which includes the petitioner as well as retaining some even though according to him they were as much culpable, if not in the same boat. The learned Single Judge relying on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. state of Haryana and others reported in (2008) 12 S.C.C., 331 with special emphasis on paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 remanded the writ application for re-consideration. The order passed after re- consideration is contained in annexure-1 which is under challenge in the present writ application. Petitioner raises similar plea including the additional plea that the observation of the High Court in the earlier order has not been taken into consideration while insisting with the order of termination simplicitor. Submission of learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that the allegation against - 4 - him is that he only instigated or took part in agitation just like many others. It was a case of mob action and it is unfair to put the entire blame on a handful of trainees. However, there are materials to show that it is not that the respondents have picked up persons for action at random. They have zerowed down on the mischief makers or the leaders after some exercise. Since the petitioner was not a permanent employee and was only a probationer, this Court has certain reservation in applying the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Man Singh (Supra) which was not passed in a similar matter. That case related to a permanent employee and not a probationer who is liable for termination during the period of probation as per extent rule. There is a very detailed consideration which has been given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) to the issue and in the opinion of this Court indulgence of the kind which the petitioner is looking for will be detrimental to the interest of the disciplined force to which the petitioner had only been recruited and was - 5 - at the threshold of training. The status of the petitioner as probationer, therefore, does give power to the respondents to terminate his services which is a termination order simplicitor. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)