Telangana High Court: In a case wherein a writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to declare the actions of Respondent 4 in terminating the petitioner from Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) under the proviso to Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’) instead of Rule 16 of the Rules without serving one month notice or one month salary as contemplated under the said Rule as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, Nagesh Bheemapaka, J., observed that the respondents had followed the mandate provided in the Rules and that medical expenditure was borne by CRPF while the petitioner was in service, hence, continuing the same facility even after termination was not in conformity with the procedure. The Court opined that in an organisation like CRPF, a member suffering from bipolar affective disorder, psychosis C Epiphora and depression could not be expected to perform his duties with utmost commitment and discipline. Hence, the Court agreed with Respondent 4’s action of termination.
The petitioner was not mentally sound and thus, was represented by his father, who claimed that the petitioner was unlawfully and illegally terminated by Respondent 4 from CRPF. It was submitted that the petitioner developed mental illness and depression while he was on extended period of probation for one year. Therefore, he had to be provided suitable financial and medical assistance as applicable under CRPF Risk Fund and had to be paid regular subscription towards the Risk Fund. The petitioner’s father submitted that the doctors had not declared his son permanently incapacitated for service.
It was submitted that the petitioner was continuously under treatment for ailment of ‘Acute Phychosis and depression’ and one day, he suddenly developed abnormal behaviour like irrelevant talking, abusing others, refusing to attend duty, trying to beat his colleagues. It was further stated that considering the chronicity and relapsing nature of his illness, duties, and responsibilities, the Medical Board opined that he was not fit to continue as an effective member of the Force, therefore, action was taken as per the order. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father appealed against the order of termination which was rejected by the Inspector-General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF New Delhi on the grounds of being devoid of merit.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted the aims and objectives of CRPF and opined that “it is India’s largest paramilitary Force. It performs a wide range of duties, to name a few law enforcements, counter-terrorism operations, VIP security, etcetera. CRPF personnel are being deployed all over India and they participate in various operations and peace-keeping missions in the country. CRPF is known for its professionalism, discipline, and commitment in maintaining peace and security of the nation”.
As for the actions of Respondent 4 which was in question, the Court observed that the material on record, medical certificates and discharge summary showed that the petitioner had been suffering from bipolar affective disorder, psychosis C Epiphora and depression. The Court opined that in an organisation like CRPF, a member with such mental condition could not be expected to perform his duties with utmost commitment and discipline. Hence, the Court agreed with Respondent 4’s action of termination.
The Court held that it was not inclined to accept the petitioner‘s contentions regarding the termination without a month salary or notice under Rule 5(1) as Respondent 4 had followed the mandate provided under Rule 5(1)(b) and in pursuance of the said Rule directed that the petitioner “shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month”.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s submission that he had to be provided with suitable financial and medical assistance as applicable under CRPF Risk Fund was concerned, according to the respondents, medical expenditure was borne by CRPF while he was in service, hence, continuing the same facility even after his termination was not in conformity with the procedure. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition being devoid of merit.
[Sailada Malleswar Rao v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 3399, Order dated 05-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ms. Narinder Pal Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, DSG