IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.980 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7242 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Hemant Kumar Singh Ct/Gd 065201122 S/O Late Murari Prasad Singh, R/O Village Paharpur, P.O. Lohchi,P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi. 2. Director General Of Police Cum Revisional Authority Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1 Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1 Central Directorate Campus, Block No. 1, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 3. Inspector General Of Police Cum Appellate Authority Bihar Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Group Centre Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur (Bihar). 5. Additional Deputy Director Of Police C.R.P.F. Group Centre Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, CGC ====================================================== 5 19-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and leaned counsel for the Union of India 2. The appellant was terminated from service as a probationer constable in Central Reserve Police Force at Muzaffarpur on the grounds which are mentioned in the order of termination dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The termination is in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Patna High Court LPA No.980 of 2010 (5) dt.19-12-2011 2 Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 on the ground that he had absconded from the Force and, therefore, a notice of termination after 30 days as required by Rules was issued at his home address. Even that notice returned back with endorsement by the postal peon that there was refusal to accept the letter. But before the one month period could expire, the appellant appeared in the CRPF Camp on 31.12.2008 and hence, the notice which had returned back was served upon him and after the period expired, the termination order was issued on 31.1.2009. 3. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the Writ Court has referred to certain facts which were of earlier period when the appellant was sick and the authorities had ultimately regularized that period of absence which is admitted in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India does not dispute that position but he submitted that the facts stated in the notice of termination and the termination order are clear. He pointed out that in order to facilitate the treatment of the appellant at PMCH, Patna, he was transferred to a Unit Camp at Patna but after working and doing light duty in the Camp and undergoing treatment as per direction of the medical authorities, the Patna High Court LPA No.980 of 2010 (5) dt.19-12-2011 3 appellant without any intimation left his post on 11.11.2008. A letter dated 14.11.2008 was sent to him but he did not receive the same. Thereafter, a notice was issued for termination as required by the rules followed by termination of his probation in service. 5. On behalf of the appellant a plea was raised that lapse of the appellant in going to home without taking leave was against rules but same should have been condoned because he was undergoing treatment since a long period. The documents annexed with the writ petition showing treatment at PMCH disclose that after 11.11.2008 the appellant returned to the hospital only on 6.12.2008 when the required notice for termination had already been issued on 5.12.2008. Thereafter, he obtained a certificate that he was fit for duty on 27.12.2008. There was clear disregard of the rules requiring him to take leave from the authorities or at least inform them before leaving his post. Annexure-10 to the writ petition is a representation in which the appellant has admitted that he went home without taking permission but his plea is that he was not aware of the rules that he was required to take permission for going home. 6. Since the departmental authority has also rejected the appeal of the appellant as he was only a probationer, we are not Patna High Court LPA No.980 of 2010 (5) dt.19-12-2011 4 inclined to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)