Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3111 of 2018 1 - Gunit Ram Sahre S/o S/o Shri Aartu Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Baihakuanwa, P. O. Bharda, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General C. A. F. Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant 226th Battalion Sabrinagar, Sukma, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State For Union of India
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate : : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey -2- Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the impugned termination order dated 18/08/2016 passed by the respondent, placed as Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 25.07.2014 to the post of Constable/Water Carrier under respondent No.4 on a temporary basis according to the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules of 1965’). He would further submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated vide order dated 03.09.2016. He would contend that no inquiry was conducted. He would further contend that the Rules of 1965 were 3 not complied with. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Diwan learned counsel appearing for the Union of India would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the Rules of 1965. He would further submit that a decision was taken by the competent authority with regard to the termination of services according to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, which deals with the termination of temporary service. He would contend that one month’s notice/one month’s advance salary was paid to the petitioner and he was permitted to claim one month’s salary plus allowances and thus, his services were terminated strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965. He would further contend that the petitioner had a remedy to prefer a review before the Head of the Department within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the order impugned but he directly approached this Court, therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would support the submissions made by Mr. Diwan. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Initially, the petitioner was appointed according to the Rules of -4- 1965 as a temporary employee on 25.07.2014. The order impugned was issued on 03.09.2016 by the competent authority and the petitioner was permitted to claim one month’s salary plus allowances. 7. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 deals with the termination of temporary service. The provision is reproduced herein below:- “5. Termination of Temporary Service -(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant; (b) the period of such notice shall be one month: Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. NOTE. The following procedure shall be adopted by the Appointing Authority while serving notice on such Government servant under Clause (a):- (i) The notice shall be delivered or tendered to the Government servant in person; (ii) Where personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served on such Government servant by registered post acknowledgment due at the address of the Government servant available with the Appointing Authority; (iii) If the notice sent by registered post is returned unserved, it shall be published in the Official Gazette and upon such publication, it shall be deemed to have been personally served on such Government servant on the date it was published in the Official Gazette. 5 (2) (a) Where a notice is given by the Appointing Authority terminating services of a temporary Government servant, or where the service of any such Government servant is terminated either on the expiry of the period of such notice or forthwith by payment of pay plus allowance, the Central Government or any other authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf or a Head of Department, if the said authority is subornation to him, may, of its own motion or otherwise, re-open the case, and after making such enquiry as it deems fit,- (i) confirm the action taken by the Appointing Authority; (ii) withdraw the notice; (iii) reinstate the Government servant in service; or (iv) make such other order in the case as it may consider proper: Provided that except in special circumstances, which should be recorded in writing, no case shall be reopened under this sub-rule after the expiry of three months- (i) from the date of notice, in a case where notice is given; (ii) from the date of termination of service, in a case where no notice is given. (b) Where a Government servant is reinstated in service under sub-rule (2), the order of reinstatement shall specify- (i) the amount or proportion of pay and allowances, if any, to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence between the date of termination of his services and the date of his reinstatement; and (ii) whether the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any specified purpose or purposes.” 8. A perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and the order impugned would show that the order of termination of service was passed strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965. Further, -6- there is an efficacious remedy to prefer a review of the said order before the Head of the Department. 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. 10.However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a review before the Head of the Department according to Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1965, if so advised. The authority concerned shall consider the issue of limitation taking a liberal approach as the matter remained pending before this Court for a considerable period. Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge