IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2039 of 2011
Amit Kumar SON OF SHRI MAHENDRA RAM RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE KUMARPUR, P.O. MANJORA, P.S.
BIHARIGANJ, MADHEPURA.
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors .
-----------
3 01/07/2011 Admitted position with regard to the present
dispute is that the petitioner was a probationer
undergoing training in what is known as Nath Nagar
Police Training Centre in the district of Bhagalpur. The
post on which the petitioner was appointed was the post
of Sub Inspector of Police.
During the course of training, one of the trainee
Sub Inspector of Police died during the course of
treatment at I.G.I.M.S., Patna. Because of rumour
floating on the campus as to the circumstance of death of
the trainee, it led to violence and act of indiscipline
which was indulged by many a persons who were
undergoing training at the relevant time. Petitioner was
also one of the probationers. When the matter was
enquired into, it transpired that the petitioner had a role
in instigating and leading other probationers to indulge in
serious acts of indiscipline due to the death in question.
-2-
The above pre-background compelled the
authorities to zero down on the persons who were
responsible for such unruly acts and it was decided in
the wisdom of the authorities that they should invoke
powers under Rule 668-A of the Bihar Police Manual,
1978. The powers are there to terminate the services of
probationers. The termination order issued was order of
termination, simplicitor.
This Court does not have to go into catena of
decisions with regard to the right of a probationer to
continue on the post as well as the right of an employer
to terminate them during the period of probation,
whatever be the evolution in service jurisprudence. This
basic principles have not undergone any drastic change.
Probationers can be terminated if the employer is not
satisfied for whatever reason with regard to their
conduct, behaviour or the quality of training they have
acquired during the period of probation.
Termination order led to filing of earlier writ
application. Petitioner was also one of the persons who
moved in C.W.J.C. No. 17523 of 2009. The learned
Single Judge decided to remand the matter back to the
-3-
authorities for re-consideration on the ground urged at
the Bar that there is violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India in matter of award of punishment.
According to the petitioner discrimination had been
practiced while terminating the services of some which
includes the petitioner as well as retaining some even
though according to him they were as much culpable, if
not in the same boat.
The learned Single Judge relying on a decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Man Singh Vs. state of Haryana and others reported
in (2008) 12 S.C.C., 331 with special emphasis on
paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 remanded the writ application
for re-consideration. The order passed after re-
consideration is contained in annexure-1 which is under
challenge in the present writ application. Petitioner
raises similar plea including the additional plea that the
observation of the High Court in the earlier order has not
been taken into consideration while insisting with the
order of termination simplicitor.
Submission of learned Senior Counsel
representing the petitioner is that the allegation against
-4-
him is that he only instigated or took part in agitation just
like many others. It was a case of mob action and it is
unfair to put the entire blame on a handful of trainees.
However, there are materials to show that it is
not that the respondents have picked up persons for
action at random. They have zerowed down on the
mischief makers or the leaders after some exercise.
Since the petitioner was not a permanent
employee and was only a probationer, this Court has
certain reservation in applying the principle of Article 14
of the Constitution of India as envisaged by the Supreme
Court in the case of Man Singh (Supra) which was not
passed in a similar matter. That case related to a
permanent employee and not a probationer who is liable
for termination during the period of probation as per
extent rule.
There is a very detailed consideration which has
been given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police
(Personnel) to the issue and in the opinion of this Court
indulgence of the kind which the petitioner is looking for
will be detrimental to the interest of the disciplined force
to which the petitioner had only been recruited and was
-5-
at the threshold of training.
The status of the petitioner as probationer,
therefore, does give power to the respondents to
terminate his services which is a termination order
simplicitor.
There is no merit in this writ application. It is
dismissed.
AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)