WP(C) 4877/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petition er and Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel, appearing for all the respondents. The present petitioner has approached this Court under A rticle 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the office order dated 09.1 2.09 by which the petitioner’s service had been terminated by invoking the provi sions of Rule 6 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 and stating that the service of the petitioner was terminated on account of physical unfitness for continuance in se rvice. The brief facts of the case as may be required for the purpose of disposal of th e writ petition may be stated as follows - The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable(General Duty) in the Centra l Reserve Police Force by the Additional Director General of Police, Group Centr e, central Reserve Police Force, 9th Mile, Amerigog, Guwahati-23 vide his order under No. R.II.10/2004-EC-V-GTY dated 10th of July, 2004 after being duly select ed for the said post. Thereafter the petitioner was enlisted in 164 Battalion CRPF on 19.8.2004 and w as undergoing Basis Training at Group Centre, CRPF, Pinjore(Haryana). The petiti oner states that while undergoing basic training at Pinjore on 4.4.2005, he comp lained of pain on his left leg knee and accordingly he informed his higher autho rities about his knee pain and thereafter he was given medical treatment and ult imately he had to undergo operation on 23.04.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner ha d been undergoing treatments in various hospitals from time to time whenever he was declared fit. The petitioner also states that on 26.2.07, the Chief Medical Officer, Ortho Su rgery Government Hospital for Bone & Joint Surgery, Barzulla, Srinagar issued fi tness certificate to the petitioner that he is fit to perform his parade trainin g(P.T.) and basic training. The petitioner also states that the Chief Medical Officer(OG), Composite Hosp ital, CRPF, Guwahati-23 issued a certificate of fitness to return to duty on 27. 8.08 and he was declared to be under Medical Categorization as - A3 L(P). It is a case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was medically fit as s tated above, to his dismay, he was served with the termination order under Offic e Order No. D.V- 1/2008-164-EC-II dated 9.12.09 which has been challenged therei n. The aforesaid termination order reads as follows - OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT -164 BN, CRPF, 56 A.P.O. ANANTNAG(J& k) NO. D.V- 1/2008-164-EC-II OFFICE ORDER No. 041647481 RT/GD Mantu Barman was enlisted in 164 Bn. CRPF on 19/08/04 and u ndergoing Basic Trianing at GC, CRPF, Pinjore(Haryan),. During basic training he was sustained injuries and operated on 23/04.2005 and 03 screw head fix during operation. He had been given regular treatment time to time in various hospital and could not undergo basic training of Constable/ GD due to medical/physical un fit. A medical board was constituted at Composite Hospital, Bantalab and conducted me dical review of said RT/GD Mantu Barman vide CH. BTB letter No. M.II-3/-9-CH-EC- I dated 21/04/09. The review medical Board examined the patient who is a case of fracture of neck of femur left side. The fracture was united with screw which w er later removed. On examination there is shortening of (L) lower limv with slig ht wasting of muscles on (L) side. X-Ray (L) hip shows coax ver with significant thickening of cortex of neck of femur. The medical Board opined that, in view o f the above findings the individual has been placed in category A3 L(P). In view of above, and in pursuance of Rule 6 of CCS(TS) Rules, 1965, Mithilesh K umar, Commandant- 164 Bn, CRPF hereby terminate the service of No. 041647481 RT /GD Mantu Barman of 164 Bn. CRPF on account of physical unfitness for continuanc e in service. That his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of issue of this order. The substance of the aforesaid office order is that in view of the injury suffer ed by the petitioner in course of his training, he has been ultimately placed in the category A3 L(P). Accordingly, the authorities i.e. Commandant 164 - Batta lion, CRPF, by invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, te rminated the service of the petitioner on account of physical unfitness for cont inuance of service and the aforesaid termination order was to take effect from t he date of issue of this order. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner also has drawn att ention to a standing order 7/99 in respect of the CRPF under which it has been p rovided that there are three kinds of disabled personnel - i) those who are dis abled due to injury sustained in action against terrorists/anti social elements. ii) those who are disabled due to sickness/accident and iii) those who are disa bled due to psychiatric disease. As per the aforesaid standing order those personnel with disabilities, efforts a re to be made to rehabilitate the personnel who come under the aforesaid first t wo categories, as otherwise, it would have a very demoralizing effect on the for ce. Their cases are to be referred to the Departmental Rehabilitation Board whic h after consideration and if found suitable, would allow the continuation of ser vice of such personnel in lighter job such as Dak/Officer runner, Telephone Oper ator, Attendants in recreation rooms, Canteens, Co-operatives, Floor Mills, Welf are Centres, school buses etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has d rawn attention to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in paragr aph 8 in which the Medical Board which was constituted to examine the case of th e petitioner had given the following report - That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ application, the deponent begs to state that the case was again sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Guwahati by the Office of the Commandant, 164, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force vide letter No. 88/Est t. 4 dated 14-11-2008. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central reserve P olice Force, Guwahati vide letter NO. R-7-1/09-Esstt-6 dated 13-01-2009 intimate d the office of the Commandant, 164 Battalion, Central Hospital, Central Reserve Police Force, Jammu for a clear cut remark regarding medical category of the pe titioner and whether the petitioner is fit to work or not in the Force. Thereaft er, the office of the Commandant, 164 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force vi de letter dated 30-01-2009 requested for constitution of Medical Board by the Co mposite Hospital, Central Reserve Police Force, Bantalaw, for medical review of the petitioner with full medical history. The petitioner was admitted at the Hos pital with effect from 01-02-2009 to 27-02-2009 and was discharged by the Medica l Officer on 01-02-2009 to 27-02-2009 and was discharged by the Medical Officer on 28-0202009. While discharging, the Medical Officer had given the petitioner A3-L(P) category. Again, vide Wireless Message No. M-03/5/9-164-Estt dated 14-0302009 of the offic e of the Commandant, 164 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force; the Medical Bo ard was requested to give remarks about the petitioner. The Composite Hospital, Central Reserve Police Force, Bantalaw vide letter No. M 3-3/2009-164/Estt. Date d 21-4-2009 intimated the office of the Commandant, 164 Battalion, Central Reser ve Police Force that the constituted Medical Board has given the following remar ks with regard to the petitioner : Opinion : In view of the above finding the individual has been placed in categor y A3 (L) with effect from 13-02-2008 and has been advised light duties. Please t ake further action according to SO 04/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the authorities have neither considered th e opinion given by the Medical Board under which action was to be taken in accor dance with the standing order 04/2008. As per the aforesaid standing order those who are not fit for operation/active duties etc should be considered for light duties. The learned counsel for the respondents has furnished a copy of the aforesaid st anding order 04/08, which also provides that those who are categorised as A3 L( P) should be considered for light duties. It is the case of the petitioner tha t the authorities before invoking the power to terminate the service of the peti tioner had not at all considered the possibility of rehabilitation of the petiti oner and also did not consider for continuing the service for light duties as pr ovided under the standing order 4/2008. The petitioner also submits the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the CRPF Act, 1949 and the Rules fr amed thereunder i.e CRPF Rule, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 under which it is provided that all members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of 3 years and during this period of engagement, they shall be liable to discharge at any time on one month ’s notice by the appointing authority. Further, it is also provided that at the end of this period those who are not given substantive status shall be considere d for quasi- permanency under the provision of the Central Civil Services(Tempor ary Service) Rules, 1965. Those who are declared quasi permanent under the said rules shall be continued as temporary Government employees unless they claim dis charge as per schedule to the Act. It is also provided that those who are tempor ary shall be liable to discharge on one month’s notice and those who are quasi p ermanent shall be liable to discharge on three months’ notice in accordance with the rules. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that at least one month notice should be given to the petitioner before such termination order was issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the ser vice of the petitioner is governed by the provisions of CRPF Act, 1949 and Rules , 1955, the petitioner had been terminated from service by invoking the provisio ns of Rule 6 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioner , therefore, submits that the aforesaid termination order is liable to be set as ide as no such one month’s notice was given. In other words, the main contention of the petitioner for assailing the termination order is that the authorities b efore issuing the terminating order has not explored other possibilities by reta ining the service of the petitioner as per their own instructions for lighter jo bs given to him as stated above. Further, no notice as required under the law wa s given before the termination order was issued. I have considered the matter. The appointment order of the petitioner which is dated 10th of July , 2004 avail able before this Court in Annexure P/6 clearly states that on joining the force the petitioner will be governed by the CRPF Act 1949 and CRPF Act, 1955 and as such invoking the power under the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1 965, would be not ex facie permissible. As stated above, the CRPF Rules, 1965 co ntemplates that at least one months notice has to be given before issuing termin ation order. It is clearly evident from the impugned order itself which says tha t the termination order will be effective from the date of issuance of this term ination order and the mandatory one month’s notice was not given as such this te rmination order is liable to be set aside. However, the issue before this Court is not merely about setting aside the term ination order on the ground of failure on the part of the authorities to give th e statutory notice of one month but also the failure to examine the feasibility of retaining the service of the petitioner for light duties. In the present cas e, before the authorities undertook such an exercise for dispensing the service of the petitioner, the authorities were under legal obligation to examine as to whether the petitioner could be retained for lighter duties as per their own ins tructions as discussed above. Therefore, the authorities cannot invoke their pow er to terminate the service of the petitioner before examining the feasibility of retaining the services of the petitioner in terms of the instructions and gui delines issued by the CRPF authorities themselves. In view of the above, the termination order dated 9.12.2009 is set aside. The authorities are directed to take back the petitioner to service and reconsi der the petitioner for retaining his service for light duties in terms of their standing orders i.e, SO 7/1999 as well as 04/2008 before considering any action to dispense with the service of the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above observations and directio ns. There is no order as to costs.