Dismissed

K. Koteshwar Rao, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2023WP/4207/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Alishetty dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking reinstatement as a CRPF Constable. The court held that repeated willful desertion from training during a short span justified termination under CCS (TS) Rules. Allegations of failure to provide notice were rejected as notice was issued. The claim of urgent family need was unsupported by evidence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

K. Koteshwar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PE TITION NO:4207 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

K Koteshwar Rao, S/o. Rarna Rao, Age 25 years, Occ: CRpF Constable, (Termina.ted from service) Rl/o. Naguraiancrra'Viriale and post, chi"i;k;;i Mandal, Khammam Distriit - SO7 2od

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The Union of lndia, Rep.by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The lnspector General of Police, Southe_rn Sector, CRpF, Road No.10_C, f.e9l!9w^{trrlflM1.gorgl-v__cayatriHiils, Luoiied HirL,Hvoeiioia'} soi ose

¶13

lhe Uommander, RTC, CKpF, Neemuch O/o. The Deputy Inspecto, G;.ral gLBqligS, (Administration), Southern Sector, CRpF,-CJaa'rrro.iCi_C, ruejr. ruJ* MLA,/MPs Colony, cayatii Hiils, Jubitee Hiils, Hydeiabid _ 500 033

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High'court may ue pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^{-particularly} one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinsiate the petitioner into service as cRpF constable by setting aside the termination order No.D.V-3/2014-Es!5 dated 2-B-2o14 of the 3rd respondent and which was golflrrgd by the Apperrate Authority in order No R.Xilr-63/2016-Adm-7 dated 8.9.2016 of the 2nd respondent and further rejection order No.R.XH-63/2016Adm-7 dated 4-1-2017 of the 3rd respondeni by hording the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discrimination being violition of Art.1 4 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. N. UMA DEVI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. MAITH|LI REPRESENTING FOR

¶18

SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.42O7 OF 2OI7

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present writ petition is filed praying the folloq,ing relief

¶24

to issue an appropriate writ, order or dircctron morc particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into scrvice as CRPF Constable by setting aside the termination order No.D.V3/2014-Est 5, dated 02.Oa.2O14 of the 3'd respondcnt and which was confirmed by thc Appcllarc Authorit-y in order No.R.xltl63/2016 Adm-7 datcd: Otl.Og.2016 o[ rhe 2"d respondent and further rejection order No. R. XIII-63/2Ol(r Adm-7, dated O4.Ol.2Ol7 of the 3'r rcspondent by holding the action of the respondents is rllcgal, arbitratl, and discrimination being violation of Article l4 of thc Constitution of India."

¶25

The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

¶26

2.1. Petitioner was selected as Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable in the year 2Ol3 and then deputed for basic training at Recruit Training Centre (RTC), CRPF, Pcringomc, where he reported to duty on 23.1O.2O13. Petitioner teft the RTC Campus on 29.1O.2013 without any intimation/ permission of the competent authority. Despite best eflorts by thc RTC, Peringome, he did not report for training nor sent any

¶27

/. \ 1..,/ ll |^\o..1)(t' rl l0l

¶28

¶29

intimation. Since the^{petitionerdid not report back for duty} even after lapse of^{three weeks, his serviceswere terminated} w.e.f. 18.11.2013 by the^{RTC, CRPF, Peringomevideorder} No.T.V. I /20 I 3-EC-III^{(KKR),dated1 8. I 1. 10 1s'}

¶30

2.2. Aggrieved by the^{terminationorder dated 18' i I 20 13,} petitioner preferred appeal^{beforetheIGP, CRPF, SS,} Hyderabad. Vide oflice^{order dated28.03.2OL4,petitioner was} reinstatcd into service.^{Onreinstatement,petitioner was} deputed for basic training^{at RTC NMWcampusand he reported} at RTC NMH on^{Ig.O7.2Ol4. Again, he desertedfrom the said} campus on 31.O7.20¹⁴ without^{any intimationor permission} from the competent authority.^{The Petitioner'sserviceswere} again tertniuatecl by the^{2nd respondentvide his order,dated} 02.o4.2014.

¶31

2.3. Aggrievcd by the termination^{ordersdated O2'Oa'2O14'} pctitioner prefcrred an appeal to^{the2"d respondenton} 16.06.2O 16 with a request^{to reinstate him into serviceon the} ground that while undergoing training,^{his motherfell sickand} he sought permission from the^{respondentsandorally} requested for leave, but the^{respondentsdid not consider his} request. Thercfore, with no^{other aiternative, he left the ollice}

¶32

1...t..1 ll' P No.1207 o/'2017

¶33

without permission. But, said appeal was rejected by the l"a respondent on 08.09.2O16 on the ground. that he had not submitted any documentary proof in support of his mother's ill health and therefore, his plea in the appeal is not tenable.

¶34

2.4 . The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the 2"d respondent on 07.12.2016 by enclosing documentary evidence of medical receipts. The representation of the petitioner was rqected by the 3.a respondent on 04.OI.2Ol7 on the ground that as per CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, there is no provision to consider second appeai/representation against the order of termination.

¶35

Respondents hled counter denying all the material allega tions and averments made by the petitioner and contended that petitioner was enlisted during 2O i 3 by Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy and was dispatched for training art Peringome and he reported to duty on 23.1O.2073, however, he deserted from campus on 29.IO.2013 without any intimation to the competent authority- On appeal, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 28.O3.20 l4 by considering the young age, family background of the petitioner and

¶36

l 'l,J H P.No 1207^{oJ )01:'}

¶37

¶38

ignorance about^{rules/ regulationsin force and also a lenient} and sympathetic^view-

¶39

1 . That on^{reinstatement, hewas dispatched for basic} training bY Group Centre,^CRPF, Pallipuram and^{he had} reported at Rccruits Training^{College, CRPF,Neemuch} on lg.O7.2Ol4.^{Again, petitionerdeserted from the said institution}

¶40

on 31.07.2O^{14 without any rntimation /permission from the} competent authority-^{An FIR was lodged by the institutionand} despite best cfforts^{by the institution,petitioner did not report} for training nor^{sent any intimation Accordingly, he was again} terminated^{from setwicew-e.f . 02.08'2014 as per sub-rule(1) of} CCS^(TS) Rules,^{1965. Againstthe terminationorder dated} 02.O8.2O14,^{petitionerpreferred an appeal to the 2"d respondent} with a request to^{reinstate him into service' However'said} appeal was rejected^{by the appellantauthority vide orderciateci} 08.09.2016^{being devoid of merit.}

¶41

3.2. It is further^{contendedthat petitioner himself admitted} that he teft the^{servicewithoutpermission, which clearly} establish that^{he willfutly knowingthc consequences,deserted} the camp. Therefore,^{the respondents have rightly takenaction} as per r-ute/ instructions^{in existence. Moreover, the petitioner}

¶42

l,, _.1,,) ll' P No J)0: ol )017

¶43

)

¶44

deserted twice within a short period of nine months during his basic training period, which is serious indiscipline which cannot be accepted. It is contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed-

¶45

Heard Ms. N.Uma Devi, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Maithili, learned counsel appearing for Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General representing for respondents.

¶46

During the course of hearing, the iearned counsel for petitior-rer mainly contended that since the petitioner is only thc person to look after the welfare of his mother, who fell sick, the petitioner left the training campus without permission because of urgency as the respondents did not sanction leave and which action is neither willful nor wanton. She further submitted that the respondents ought to havc considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner for reconsideration by taking his family position and age factor and prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶47

Learned counsel further contended that it is mandatory to givc one mon th notice before termination of services of the petitioner. However, the respondents did not give one month

¶48

/''ll ll'. P No l)0 '^{ol )017}

¶49

¶50

notice before his^{termination, therefore, termination of} petitioner from the^{services is iliegaland thus' termination} order is liable^{to be set aside/quashed'}

¶51

Per contra, Iearned^{Deputy Solicitor General submitted} that on enlisting^{the petitionerduring the year 2013' he was} dispatched^{for basic training at RecruitTraining Centre (RTC)'} Peringome, Kerala^{on 23.1O.2013'The Petitionerdesertedfrom} the RTC campus^{on 29.10.2013 without any intimation and} therefore,^{he was terminated from the service w'e'[' 18'11'2013'} However, the^{petitioner was rcinstated into serviceandwas} again dispatched^{to training at Neemuchon 19 'O7 '2014 and his} basic training^{commenced w'e'f' 21 07 2O14'The petitioner} again deserted /^{abscondedfrom the Training Centre'Neemuch} on 31 .O7 .2O^14.

¶52

It is further contended^{that or-r two occasions,within the} short period of^{commencement oftraining,the petitioner} deserted/absconded^{from the training centrewithoutany} intimation to the^{competentauthority' The conduct of the} petitioner and his^{desertion from the training camp isin} violation of the^rules /^{re gulations.[t also shows indisciplineand} irresponsibility of the^{petitioner in a disciplinedorganization'}

¶53

t.\ t..l Ll' P No JJ0i o/ )(l I^-

¶54

¶55

Since the petitioner deserted/absconded from the training centre without intimation to the competent authority, the competent authority was justified in terminating the services of petitioner as per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 after following due procedure. She therefore submitted that there are no merits in thc writ pctition and is liable to be dismissed.

¶56

Consideration:

¶57

It is re lcvarnt to extract Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services Tcmporary Scrvicc Rules (for short, Temporary Service Rules), which reads as under:

¶58

"Rule 5- Termination of tetnporarv service.

¶59

(f l (al^'the ser-vices of a temporary Governmcnt serr,'anl shall be hablc to termination at any time by a nori.c irr w tLng given either by the Government scrvant to thc apPornting authority or by the appointing authority to [hc Govcrnmcnt sctvant;

¶60

(bl thc period of such notice shall be one month-

¶61

Proviclcd that thc scrviccs of any such Government servant maj,' bc tcrminatcd forthwith and on such terrnination, the Government servalt shall be entitled to claim a sum cquit alent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which hc rvas drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period b1' which such nottc(, falls short of one month.

¶62

Notc:- Thc lollorving procedure shall be adopted by the appornting authority while serving notice on such Gcrver nmen( scrvant undcr clause (a)

¶63

Il,^{</sup> 1,./ ll'. P.l'o 1107 ol⁾⁰¹⁷}

¶64

¶65

(i) The notice shall^{be detivercd ortendercd tothc} Oovernmcnt^servantin Person^'

¶66

(ii) Where personal^{serviceis not practicable' the notice} itialt be served^{on such Government servantby registered} po"i, ,.t ""-t"dgement^{due at thcaddressofthe} 'Cou.rn-..r, se;ant available rvith the appointing authority.

¶67

(iii) If the nolice sent by^regtstered Posl^{is rclurned un} ierved it shall^{be publishcd in the OfflcialGazetteand} upon such^{publicaiion,it shalt be dt-'cmedto have been} fi.so.,atty^{sert'edon such Governmentser-vant on the} date it^{was publishedrn the Olficial Gazcltc'}

¶68

(21(al Whcre a nolice^{rs grven by lhe aPpoinlrngauthorily} ia.-ltating lhe^{servi('cs o[ fllcmPoriln covernmenl} servant, or where^{thc sen'iceof any such Government} notice "..u"r,t'i" or forthwith^{tcrminated the Ccntral on the exPiu GovcLtttncrtt ol ttre pcriod or any of oLllcrsuch} authority specified^{b1' thc CentralGovcrnrnentinthis} behalf or a^{head of f)epartncnt, rf thc said authority IS} subordrnate to^{him,tnzrl', of its ou'n Itlotionor othcrwisc'} reopen the case^{an<1after making sttctr itrtluiry as it deems} fir

¶69

(il confirm the acttoll^{taken b-\ theapporntrng} authority;

¶70

(i i) withdrarv the notice:

¶71

(iil) reinstate the Gtlvernmetlt^{sclr/:rntltr set-vlce; or}

¶72

(iv) make such other^{order inlhc case as itmay} consider^proPer.

¶73

Provided that^{exccpt in specialcircutttstances' which} shoutd be recorded^{tn rv[iting, uo c;tsc shall be re-opened} under thts sub^{rule after thc exprry of three rnonths-}

¶74

(i) from the date of^{notlce, in a case \t'here notlcels} given;

¶75

(iil from the date o[ terminatton^{of scryicc,in a casc} where no noticc^{is given}

¶76

(bl Whcre a Government^seryantls rcinstated in^scrvrce under sub-rule^{(2) the ordero[} rcinstatcmellt shall specifY(i) thc amount or ProPortion^{ol pal'and allorvances} .^{if any'} io U. pala to the^{Governrnentservanl for the periodof [ris} absencc bet['een t[]c^{datc of terminaliolloI hisservices} and the date^{of his rt: instatcrnetrt;and}

¶77

L.1,J ll P No t207 oJ 20l7

¶78

¶79

(ii) whether, thc said pcriod shall be trcated as a period spent on duty for any spectfied purpose or purposcs-'

¶80

lO. Having regard to thc fact that petitioner deserted from the training centre twice while undergoing basic training, within a short span of period, which fact is admitted by the petitioner, the only question remarins is whether such desertion was on genuine grounds, warranting a lenient view for reinstatement of the petitioner inlo the setwice.

¶81

Learned counscl for petitioner mainly contended that petitioner left the training campus without permission of the competent authority to attend to his ailing mother, as the respondents did not sanction leave. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner left the training campus twice without permission. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is in disciplined organtzation and therefore, even in the case of exigency, petitioner was supposcd to approach the competent authority and obtain requisite pe rmission/leave and thereafter, proceed to attend to his ailing mother-

¶82

Petitioncr did not place any material nor made any specific averment in the writ petition to substantiate his claim that he had approached the competent authority seeking leave/ permission and that the competent authority did not accept his

¶83

/-\ l./ ll P \o.1)0-^{ol )()1.}

¶84

¶85

request. Further,^{the petitionerdid not submit any document} evidencing^{illness of his mother and that he had to leave the} campus in^{great urgencywithout leave to attend to his ailing} mother.

¶86

A perusal^{of the order dated 08 O9'2016 ol the 2"d} were respondent,^{itisevident thatser-vicesofpetitioner} terminated in^{accordancewith sub-rule(1) ol CCS (Temporary} Service) Rules,^{1965 vide orderNo-T V-3/2014-EC-V'dated} 02.oa.2014

¶87

The decision^{relied by the learnedcounsel lor petitionerrn} thecaseofUnionoflndiaandothersvs.GirirajSharmalthe facts are completely^{different as inthat case the issuewas} whether, overstaying^{the period of leavecan be ground for} dismissal. However,^{in thepresent case' admittedly'the} petitioner deserted^{the training campus twicewithout} permission of^{authorities in clear violationof rules' therefore'} the said decision^{is distinguishable on facts and thus'does not} come to the^{aid of the} Petitioner'

¶88

15 With regard to^{the contentionof the learned counselfor} petitioner that one^{month noticewas not give n to the petitioner}

¶89

100{ Supp^(3)SCC755

¶90

t\t,.1 tt/. P. No 110- tf ]017

¶91

¶92

prior to termination, a perusal of proceedings dated O8.O9.2O l6 (by which the appeal of the petitioner was rejected), shows that one month notice was issued and therefore, said contention of learned counsel for petitioner is contrary to material on record.

¶93

Even otherwise, thc proviso to sub-rule [1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Tcmporary Scrvice) Rutes, 1965, provides that serviccs of any Government servant may be tcrminated forthwith and on such termination, the Governmcnt servant shall be entitled to claim a sum cquivetlent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the pcriod of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before termination of his services, or as the case may be, for thc period by which such notice la[[s short o[ clnc month.

¶94

In the light o[ abovc discussion and the material placed on record, the pctitioncr failed to makc out any case warranting interference of this Court with thc impugncd order.

¶95

Conclusion:

¶96

In the light of above factual background ar-rd discussion, in considered view o[ this Court, Writ petition is devoid o[ merits and thus, fails and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶97

/.\ I./ U.l' t\i 1)0.' ol )017

¶98