IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8797 of 2009 Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Majhauan, P.S.-Ara Town, District-Bhojpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India. 2. The Director General, C.I.S.F., New Delhi. 3. The Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F. RTC, Arrakonam, Tamilnadu. 4. The D.I.G., Training Centre, C.I.S.F. Head Quarters, New Delhi. 5. The D.I.G. Principal, C.I.S.F. Security Camp (RDC), Arrakonam Security Camp, District-Vellore (Tamilnadu). -Respondents. ******** Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Pathak Mr. Raghunath Singh. Counsel for the Union of India : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst. S.G. Mr. Sarvadeo Singh. ******** 02 28.07.2009 The petitioner was selected as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F). He was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit at Farakka Super Thermal Power Unit, Farakka and from there sent for training in the probation period Vellore in the State of Tamilnadu. He allegedly fell ill. He abandoned station and came back to his native village at Ara. After about four weeks when he was fit again he went back and tried to join but he was not permitted to join and ultimately termination order on ground of desertion was issued. Petitioner states that even though on probation he was required to be noticed before order of termination is passed. He was not given one month pay while terminating. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, principles of natural justice is not an unruly horse which can be fitted anywhere. In record, he has himself annexed in his own - 2 - application in his own handwriting wherein several times he has admitted that he being unwell left station without information to anybody and reported back only after five to six weeks. This is clear indiscipline and a clear case of desertion. It is not his case that there was no treatment available or the authorities was not attending his grievances that he was forced to leave the station. Such a conduct by a uniform personnel is not expected. The order of termination, thus, cannot be interfered with. So far as payment is concerned, as contemplated in Rule 25 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001, petitioner may make claim thereof and the authority would consider the same and do needful in the matter immediately. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)