IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.524 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.7.2009 Union of India & others. -----Appellants Vs. Om Parkash. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the proposal to discharge the contesting respondents from service. 2. The contesting respondent joined Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) as Constable on 6.9.1994. He met with an accident on 2.7.1997 while going to his home town and received multiple injuries and became handicapped due to fracture of both bones of right forearm. On 10.3.2007, the condition of the petitioner was reviewed at Base Hospital of ITBP and he was declared unfit for service, as movement of right hand forearm and fingers was restricted on account of injuries. Grievance of the LPA No.524 of 2009 writ petitioner was that even though the medical Board had given its opinion on 10.3.2007, as per report of the Assistant Commandant of the ITBP dated 25.4.2007, it was mentioned that he was doing his duty with hard work, honesty and discipline and he performed the duties on various posts mentioned therein. Without considering the said report, only on the basis of opinion of the medical Board, the petitioner was sought to be discharged from service. He was aged 36 years. Even after receiving injuries, he had served for more than 11 years and 11 months. 3. Learned Single Judge held that recommendations of the Assistant Commandant about performance of the duties could not be ignored and if he performed his duties satisfactorily inspite of injuries, discharging him from service at the age of 36 years was arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of expert opinion of the medical Board, the contesting respondent was liable to be discharged from service. However, he is not able to explain how the opinion of the medical Board by itself could not be conclusive if the Assistant Commandant himself was satisfied about performance of the contesting respondent. There is nothing to show that the performance of the contesting respondent was not upto mark. 5. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is, however, made clear that if the performance of the contesting 2 LPA No.524 of 2009 respondent is not found upto to the mark at any stage later, the appellants will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 01, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3