Termination of probationer services upheld for non-completion of training; recovery of costs re-examined.

The Applicant, Birdhi Chand Meena, qualified for the IRSE and joined training at IRICEN, Pune, on December 15, 2014.

His 78-week training was scheduled to end on June 12, 2016.

The Applicant took leave for urgent family work from April 4, 2016, and then sought extensions due to medical grounds, eventually reporting for duty on October 15, 2016.

He passed the written part of the Posting Exams in October 2016 but failed to appear for the Viva-Voce and Project Report Evaluation components.

The Applicant subsequently left without intimation from October 22, 2016, onwards, purportedly for medical treatment in Jaipur.

The Respondents sent numerous communications regarding his unauthorized absence and the need to clear the remaining Posting Exam components, but the Applicant did not respond.

Due to his failure to complete the probationary training, especially the Project Report Evaluation, a notice of termination was issued on December 14, 2018.

The Railway Board approved the termination on July 17, 2019, and the Applicant's service was terminated on August 28, 2019.

He was also directed to refund ₹15,85,924 for training costs and other amounts.

The Applicant claimed he only became aware of the termination in June 2022 after recovering from a mental illness.

Whether the termination of the Applicant's service as an IRSE Probationer was justified given his alleged medical condition and non-completion of training requirements.

Whether the Respondents adhered to due procedure while terminating the Applicant's service.

Whether the demand for refund of training costs and other amounts from the Applicant upon termination was legally permissible.

The court primarily considered the "Guidebook for Training of IRSE Probationers (Revised Nov.-2014)" which outlined the training schedule and the Posting Examination components, including Project Work and Viva-Voce.

It also relied on Para-301(3) and 301(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (I.R.E.C.) Vol.-I, which govern the termination of service for probationary officers with a three-month notice.

The "Terms and Conditions for appointment of candidates recruited to various Railway Services" further specified conditions for termination during probation due to unsatisfactory work, conduct, or failure to pass departmental exams.

Provisions from I.R.E.C. Vol.-I (Para-511, Para-519, Para-520) and the Indian Railway Medical Manual (I.R.M.M.) (Para-626, Para-574) regarding leave application, medical certification, and procedures for railway servants' medical conditions were also considered.

The court found that the Applicant's termination was not based on the non-completion of his M.Tech. degree but on his failure to complete the probationary training requirements, specifically the Project Report Evaluation and Viva-Voce components of the Posting Examination.

The Guidebook for Training of IRSE Probationers clearly listed these as integral parts of the training curriculum, which the Applicant failed to clear despite multiple rescheduling of supplementary examinations.

The Respondents communicated these requirements and termination notices through email and postal services, with delivery confirmed for some.

The Applicant's claim of severe mental illness as the reason for his non-response was undermined by evidence presented, including his marriage, application for zone change, receipt of M.Tech. marksheet, and alleged clearance of Viva-Voce during the period of purported illness, which indicated control over his mental faculties.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Applicant did not follow the prescribed procedures under I.R.E.C. and I.R.M.M. for reporting illness, submitting medical certificates, or having family members communicate on his behalf.

The court also found that the Project assigned to the Applicant served both M.Tech. and Posting Examination purposes, contradicting his claim of no project work for the latter.

However, regarding the recovery of training costs, the Respondents were directed to re-examine the legality of the recovery under Item-3 of the Terms & Conditions, especially since the Applicant's services were terminated by the Respondents, not withdrawn by him.

The Respondents were ordered to issue a final order on recovery, clearly specifying the break-up and substantiating liability as per the bond, within eight weeks, and not to enforce any recovery before this final order.

The O.A. was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.