.(^ r^.7 BEFORE THE HON»BLEM.P.STATE ADMINI8TRATIVEX TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR ^ .-n9/s^ UL^ 13>loy OrigioBiaI ADDlirotioii No. ^ ^ DevendraNath Mishra, S/o. Girdh^-ilal Mishra, Aged ^out 29 years, Cottstable (removed) R/o. Village - Kondhar (Pura), P.0. Kondhar, AIIahabad (U.P.), At present R/o. Sa&ri,Bilaspiir (C.G.). APPLICANT YERSUS l.StateofChhattisgarh Tfarough Secretary, Departm ent of Hom e Maatralaya, ShastriChowk, Raipur 2. DireetorGeneralofPoltce, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Commandant, Seeoad Battaiion, Special Arm ed Forces, S^ri, Bilaspur............................................... NONAPPLICANT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TmBUNALACTS985 < HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (Sl No.4923/2005 Devendra Nath Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate with Shri Chandresh Shrivatava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ; ORAL-ORDER (Passedon29.3.2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner assails legality and validity of order dated 1.4.2000 (Annexure A-l) passed by/ respondent No.S/Commandant, Second Battalion, S.A.F., Bilaspur, by which petitioner has been discharged from his services w.e.f. 1.4.2000, 2. Facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Constable. Petitioner was subjected entrance examination followed by interview and physical fitness test. According to the petitioner, he also possessed minimum height requirement. Petitioner was selected and appointed on 6.1.1998 vide order of Annexure A-2. Excellence Certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner upon successful completion of basic training course. Petitioner's grievance is that without assigning any reasons and without affording any opportunity of hearing, he was discharged from his service vide order -2- > o dated 1.4.2000 (Annexure A-l). The order reads that the petitioner is discharged on administrative reasons. The order of discharge from service was issued pursuant to direction issued by higher authorities on 16.3.2000 directing that the petitioner and one Dayashankar be discharged from service. Contents of the letter show that there was some allegation of irregularity in the process of selection. 3. Aggrieved by his discharge/termination, petitioner preferred representation on 22.5.2000 (Annexure A-5) praying for his reinstatement. He was then permitted to appear in the office for measurement of his height vide letter dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure A-6) followed by another letter dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure A-7). Thereafter, petitioner was not communicated any result. Petitioner again preferred representation on 14.1.2002 (Annexure A-8). In the said representation, petitioner submitted that presumably, on the basis of some complaint that petitioner's height was less than required minimum height, his services were terminated after 2 years and 3 months without giving any notice. However, no decision has been taken by the Authority on the said representation/appeal. It was also stated that during the course of selection, petitioner was subjected to physical fitness test and height measurement, where the petitioner was found possessed of minimum height requirement. He was again subjected to this measurement. But no result was disclosed nor his grievance redressed. 4. Aggrieved by termination from service, petitioner flled a petition before this Court. Finding that petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing his remedy of approaching the State Administrative Tribunal, writ petition was dismissed, observing that it is open for the petitioner to file petition before the Tribunal. Thereafter, instant petition i^^^-^-.., "\ .^1 &. 1 'l, ^^", 1 '"-, 1 'f J %t^--^'^ '^••^.^' -3- / was filed before the Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, this petition stood transferred to this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was selected for the post of Constable after undergoing process of regular selection comprising entrance examination, interview and physical fitness carried out by the Selection Agency. During that period, no shortcoming was found. Even the height of the petitioner was found to be fulfilling the minimum requirement. After selection, petitioner was dully appointed and he also underwent basic training course successfully and Excellence Certificate was issued in his favour. Terniination of services of the petitioner after almost 2 years and 3 months without affording any opportunity of hearing was in utter violation of principles of natural justice. It is also argued that on representation/appeal preferred, petitioner was again called vide letters dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure A-6) and 17.1.2002 (Annexure A-7). Pursuant to those calls, petitioner was again subjected to height measurement and his height was found to be upto the mark. Thus, respondents were under an obligation to immediately reinstate petitioner in service. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of respondents in terminating petitioner's ser^ices without any reason, without affording any opportunity of hearing, is unsustainable. It is also submitted that non-consideration of case of the petitioner subsequent upon fresh physical test and non-reinstatement, only perpetuated the illegality and arbitrariness as he remains deprived of his livelihood. 6. Per contra, all that has been stated by the respondents in their short reply is that petitioner was discharged from servrice on administrative reasons. -4- ^&^' ^ It has also been submitted that assuming the submissions of the petitioner as correct, at the most, he is entitled to a month's salary and nothing more. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 8. Along with return, the respondents have placed on record the impugned order dated 1.4.2000 already filed as Annexure A-l, as Annexure R-l. It has not been disputed by the respondents that petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable after undergoing process of selection comprising of entrance examination followed by an interview and verification of physical fitness and all other requirements. Petitioner underwent basic training successfully, which is evident from Certificate (Annexure A-3). After more than 2 years of his service, impugned order was passed. Undeniably, the order of discharge from service was passed without giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From the averments made in the petition and'various representations, particularly communication dated 16.3.2000 (Annexure A-4), it appears that there was some allegation with regard to irregularity in selection of the petitioner. However, neither in the impugned order nor in the return, it has been disclosed and has rather been kept close to the chest. From letter dated ' 27.12.2001 (Annexure A-6) 8s 17.1.2002 (Annexure A-7), it is revealed that petitioner, on representation made against termination, was called for height measurement. It has been categorically averred in the petition that upon representation made, he came to know that he has been discharged because he did not posses minimum height requirement.It is also averred in specific terms that pursuant to letters 27.12.2001 (Annexure A-6) 85 ^ r^ -5- \! 17.1.2002 (Annexure A-7), petitioner again appeared for re-measurement of height but no decision was taken. All these averments made specifically in the petition have not been disputed by the respondents in their return. It therefore becomes an admitted position that on some allegation relating to irregularity in selection, may be with regard to height requirement, petitioner was terminated. Before taking such action, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Even after his termination, when petitioner preferred representations, though he was called for re- measurement, no decision was communicated. The return of the respondents as also impugned order dated 1.4.2000 (Annexure A-l) discloses less and suppresses more. What was that administrative reason for discharge has not been disclosed before this Court either in the pleadings or by placing on record any material. 9. This Court is therefore is of the opinion that impugned order of discharge/termination of service passed on 1.4.2000 (Annexure A-l) was in utter violation of principles of natural justice, based on no reasons whatsoever and is therefore void and non-est By the impugned action, which is apparently arbitrary and violative ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution of India, petitioner has been deprived of his source of livelihood. Present is not a case where the respondents have come out with specific case that petitioner was not possessed of statutory prescribed minimum qualifying requirements. In fact, no reasons whatsoever has been disclosed which would lead this Court to draw inference that there was valid basis for terminating services of the petitioner. Since the impugned order entailed civil consequences, depriving petitioner of his source of livelihood without hearing, renders the same void and non-est. ^-,^^%^ •^ €. '?S '^/ -6- Consequently, impugned order dated 1.4.2000 (Annexure A-l) passed by respondent No.S/Commandant, Second Battalion, S.A.F. Sakri, Bilaspur is set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it may be clarifled that appropriate action may be taken after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. 11. No such clarification is necessary as it is always open for the respondents ^ to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations, petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen