RAKESH KUMAR TEKAM vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1
SIDDHANT
TAMRAKAR
Digitally signed by
SIDDHANT
TAMRAKAR
Date: 2026.09.09
14:55:47 +0530

CGHC010006362006 2026:CGHC:39218
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP No. 326 of 2006
 Rakesh Kumar Tekam, Ex-RT/GD No. 03506167 CRPF, S/o Jasal Ram
Tekam, Aged about 30 Years, R/o Village & Post Belmand, Tahsil – Balod,
Distt. : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Union Of India, Through- Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Block No. 13, CGO’s Complex, Lodhi Road, New
– Delhi -03
2. Inspector General of Police, Special Sector, CRPF Old Sectt, Block No. 11,
New- Delhi.
3. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police
Force, New RTC Group Centre, Bagarsia Bhopal – MP 462026
4. Company Commander (Admn.), Central Reserve Police Force, New RTC
Group Centre, Bagarsia Bhopal – MP 462026
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
07.09 .2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“7.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondents to produce the entire
records relating to the case of the Petitioner;
7.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated

2
10-2-2004 (Annexure P-6) 13-3-2004 (Annexure
P-5) passed by Respondent No. 3 and appellate
order dated 2-12-2004 (Annexure P-8) passed by
respondent No.2 by which the appeal of the
Petitioner has been rejected;
7.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to
join duty from the date on which he was declared
fit i.e. 25.03.2004 along with all consequential
benefits;
7.4 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems
fit, and proper in the circumstances of the case
and petition may kindly be allowed with costs.”
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was enlisted in Group Center, Central
Reserved Police Force (CRPF) Bhopal as Constable(GD) on 30.06.2003. He
was sent to Group Center Bhopal Hospital for treatment and further referred
to Hamidia Hospital Bhopal. During the treatment, it was found that the
petitioner was suffering from mental disorder since long. On 20.01.2004, he
was referred to Base Hospital-II, CRPF Hydrabad. Vide letter dated
03.02.2004, it was opined that the petitioner was suffering from mental
disorder prior to enlistment in the CRPF and he was taking treatment from
private hospital since March, 2003. In view of the disease the petitioner was
suffering, it was opined that the petitioner was not fit for active combat
duties. The petitioner was served with one month notice under the provisions
of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (for
short “Rules of 1965”) on 10.02.2004. The petitioner deserted from camp on
11.03.2004 before completion of one month without informing his superior
authorities. On account of this desertion, an FIR was lodged on 12.03.2004.
The services of the petitioner were terminated from force with effect from
13.03.2004.

3
3. The petitioner challenged said order by filing an appeal, which was
dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2004 and against said order this petition
has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was a
regular appointee under the respondents, and therefore, an inquiry ought to
have been conducted before inflicting major penalty. He would contend that
the petitioner was treated as temporary employee, whereas, he was appointed
against sanctioned and vacant post of Constable (GD). He would contend
that as the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder, therefore, the
respondent authorities should have provided proper treatment to the
petitioner instead of passing an order of removal. He would submit that the
action of respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and
contrary to the provisions of Rules of 1965. He would pray to allow this
petition.
5. Though there is no representation on behalf of respondent authorities, but
return has been filed. In return, it is pleaded that the petitioner was enlisted in
CRPF and he was sent for treatment in Group Center Bhopal Hospital and
further referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. During the treatment, it was
found that the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder since long, and
subsequently, he was referred to higher center in Hydrabad. It is also pleaded
that the petitioner was under continuous treatment in a private hospital at
Durg prior to date of his enlistment. The competent authority looking to the
medical condition of the petitioner opined that individual was not fit for
active combat duties and would not be an effective member of the force and
decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner according to

4
Rule 5 (1) of Rules, 1965.
6. I have heard Mr. Dubey at length and perused the documents placed on
record.
7. The petitioner has not disputed his medical condition and documents placed
on record. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Constable (GD) temporary.
8. Rule 5(1) of Rules, 1965 reads as under :-
“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 services 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

5
registered post, acknowledgement 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.”
9. Bare reading of above quoted provision would make it clear that services of a
temporary Government servant can be terminated at any time by a notice in
writing, issued by the appointing authority and period of notice shall be one
month. The appointing authority has to serve notice upon the Government
servant in person or through registered post acknowledgment due at the
address of the Government servant. If the notice sent by registered post is
returned unserved it shall be published in the Official Gazette and after
expiry of period of 30 days, the services of the Government servant would be
treated terminated.
10. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a notice under Rule 5 of
the Rules, 1965 on 10.02.2004 as pleaded in return and this fact has not been
refuted by way of rejoinder.
11. The decisions was taken by the respondent authorities in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965 looking to the medical condition of
the petitioner and order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed by
the appellate authority.
12.
Having considered the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground
to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as
appellate authority.

6
13. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant