IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1184 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 6714OF 2010. ==================================================== WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6688 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1184 OF 2010 ==================================================== Kishore Kumar S/O Bal Shundar Paswan R/O Vill.- Tetari, P.O.- Nadawan, P.S.- Dhanarua, Distt.- Patna- Appellant. Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi 2. Director National Institute Of Security Academy, C.I.S.F., P.O.- Hakim Pet, Distt.- Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad - 78 3. Inspector General National Institute Of Security Academy, C.I.S.F., P.O.- Hakim Pet, Distt.- Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad – 7 4. Senior Commandant (Training) National Institute Of Security Academy, P.O.- Hakimpet, Distt.- Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad – 78 5. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Eastern Zone, Head Quarter, Patna.- Resposndents. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Raghib Ahsan (A..S.G) Mr. Shiv Kumar, (C.G.C.) ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 24.8.2010. Reg: I.A.No.6688 of 2010. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 25 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances, the delay is condoned. The interim application is disposed of. Reg: Letters Patent Appeal No.1184 of 2010. This appeal is preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 20th May 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.6714 of 2010. The appellant writ petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as “the Force”). While he was undergoing training, he left the place without permission or without intimation to the competent authority. In view of his long absence during the training, he was given notice of termination under Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟). On completion of the stipulated period, by order dated 29th October, 2008, his service was terminated. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant made a representation to the Inspector General, National Industrial Security Academy. The said representation came to be rejected on 3rd August 2009. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed C.W.J.C.No.10485 of 2009. The said writ petition was contested by the Force. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Force made statement before the court (Corum:Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.) 3 that the appellant had not preferred appeal in terms of Rule 46 of the Rules. In view of the said statement, the court, under its order dated 24.8.2009, permitted the appellant to withdraw the writ petition with a leave to file appeal. It was further observed that: “if an appeal is so filed, within fifteen days from today, the same shall be entertained on its own merit and not dismiss on ground of limitation, as the matter has been pending in wrong forum.” Pursuant to the above order, the appellant filed an appeal. The said appeal came to be rejected on 20th November 2009. It was stated in the order that earlier the appeal filed in the department on 28th February 2009 was rejected on 3rd August 2009 and the second appeal in the same subject matter was not maintainable. It was also stated that the appeal was not filed within fifteen days specified by the Court and that the appeal was unsigned and undated. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the above C.W.J.C.No.6714 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition and has confirmed the aforesaid order dated 20th November 2009. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant had left the training as he had fallen sick. He has also produced a medical certificate along with the supplementary affidavit. He 4 next submits that the notices to report for training mentioned in the notice of termination, were never received by the appellant. He has next contended that earlier, the appellant had made a representation in terms of rule 26 of the Rules. The appeal filed by the appellant pursuant to the order of the court ought to have been entertained. Learned advocate submits that the appellant did not mention the date or did not sign the appeal memo as he had no knowledge. We are unable to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant‟s counsel. Irrespective of the maintainability of appeal before the departmental authority, we have considered the order of termination on merit. Let it be noted that though the representation made by the appellant under Rule 26 of the rules was rejected on 3rd August 2009, the said order was never challenged by the appellant either in the earlier writ petition or in the present writ petition. Besides, the notice of termination is self explanatory. Admittedly the appellant left the training without permission of the competent authority. It is also irrefutable that the appellant did not respond to the notice to report for the training. The appellant being a probationer, he was considered not fit for permanent appointment. His service was, therefore, 5 terminated in accordance with Rule 25(2) of the Rules. In the circumstances, the order of termination of service of the appellant does not warrant interference. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ahk (R. M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)