5 July 2023 4:48 PM GMT
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Constable of Railway Protection Force against his termination order. The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said the petitioner responded to notice from Thakurli (Maharashtra) and the disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him at Thakurli and finally the impugned order was also passed and served...
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Constable of Railway Protection Force against his termination order.
The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said the petitioner responded to notice from Thakurli (Maharashtra) and the disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him at Thakurli and finally the impugned order was also passed and served upon him at Thakurli
"Hence, it is clear that no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in the State of Rajasthan,” said the court.
The court said the facts pleaded in the petition do not disclose that any cause of action or part cause of action that can be said to have arisen within its territorial jurisdiction of this court. "Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable,” it added.
The petitioner was terminated from the post of Constable under Rule 57.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules 1987) while on probation period vide impugned order dated November 15, 2016 passed by Senior Commanding Officer, 12th BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli (Maharashtra).
The petitioner approached the appellate authority challenging the impugned order which was rejected by the DIG/R&T, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi vide communication dated April 27, 2017. Thus, the petitioner assailed both the orders before the High Court by way of the present writ petition.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharged without holding proper inquiry and without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge. However, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 to file Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority.
It was further submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the authorities in Maharashtra and no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in Rajasthan, hence the Rajasthan High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present writ petition.
It was argued that an employee on probation period does not have right to continue the job and his services can be terminated during the period of probation.
The court noted that the action under Rule 57.3 is not in the nature of a disciplinary proceedings, hence the appeal was rejected by observing that as per Rule 212 there is no appeal against an order of discharge of a recruit trainee who has not been enrolled as a member of the Force.
It further observed that the Appellate Authority has not treated the petitioner as an enrolled member of the Force and he was treated as a recruit only and accordingly his appeal was not entertained on merits.
"When the Appellate Authority is of the view that appeal is not maintainable, then how Revision Petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not been treated as an enrolled member of the Force. In view of the above discussion, this court finds no force in the argument of the counsel for respondent that this writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing Revision Petition under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987," said the court.
However, the court dismissed the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum as may be available to him under the law.
Case Title: Norat Rana v. Union of India & 2 Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
Click Here to Read/Download Judgment