THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.41339 of 2014
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to Order No.V-11014/TS/Legal/255/SHREEMANAS/ 2011/1362, dated 20.10.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and the termination order No.E-37013/36th BT/SI/Exe(Direct)/SM/ Adm.II/2011/3907, dated 26.08.2011, passed by respondent No.3 and quash them holding as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without authority of law.
2) Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Mishra, learned counsel, representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected as Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force through Staff Selection Commission and posted at respondent No.2 Training Unit on 08.12.2010 to undergo basic training. While the petitioner was undergoing training, 2-3 incidents took place wherein the instructors have reprimanded the petitioner for no fault of him. Finally, the authorities have passed the order of termination on 26.08.2011 by invoking Rule 25 of PK, J 2 WP_41339_2014 CISF Rules, 2001, arbitrarily. Learned counsel contended that while the petitioner was on probation, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the authorities came to the conclusion that the behaviour of the petitioner was undesirable and the same goes to show that the respondents wantonly passed the impugned order of termination. Learned counsel has further contended that even though the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. second respondent herein, the same was dismissed without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel has further contended that, in a catena of cases, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that even for removal of an employee during the probation period, the authorities have to put the employee on notice. But, in the case on hand, no such procedure was followed. Hence, the impugned termination order is without any authority of law and unconstitutional. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Vijaya Kumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala 1.
4) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that during the basic training period of the petitioner, his conduct and behaviour were found not up to the mark. He 1 (2020) 12 SCC 426 PK, J 3 WP_41339_2014 found argumentative in nature and argued many a times with his instructors and senior officials. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the several incidents occurred during the training period of the petitioner, which were categorically mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, to prove the misbehaviour and misconduct of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that in spite of repeated counselling he did not improve his conduct. In this regard, a fact finding enquiry was also conducted wherein it was established that the petitioner was very argumentative in nature, insubordinate, intemperate and not fit to be involved in group training activities. As the acts of the petitioner were found to be not compatible with required qualities expected from a member of the Armed Force of the Union of India, he was found not fit for service in CISF and therefore the respondents are justified in terminating the services of the petitioner by giving one month pay in lieu of one month notice, as per the provision contained in Rule 25 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly i.e. after a lapse of more than four years and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed also on the ground of delay and laches.
PK, J
4 WP_41339_2014
5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both
the counsel and perused the material on record.
6) A perusal of the record discloses that undisputedly the petitioner was on probation while passing of the impugned termination order, dated 20.10.2011, under Rule 25 of the CISF Rules, 2001. For better adjudication of the matter, Rule 25 (2) of the CISF Rules, 2001, which is relevant to the case on hand, is extracted hereunder:
"If during the period of probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may discharge him [or terminate the services] from the Force after issue of notice of one month or after giving one month's pay in lieu of such notice, or revert him to the rank from which he was promoted or repatriate to his parent department, as the case may be."
The above Rule empowers the competent authority to discharge/terminate the probationer, if the authority is of the opinion that the said member is not fit for permanent appointment.
7) In the case on hand, as evident from the impugned termination order, respondent No.3, who is the competent authority, has terminated the services of the petitioner by invoking Rule 25 of the CISR Rules, 2001, and the petitioner was also paid PK, J 5 WP_41339_2014 one month pay and allowances in lieu of one month notice as envisaged in the above referred Rule.
8) Coming to the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. (referred supra), in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on its earlier judgment in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences 2 wherein it was held as under:
"21. Once of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance of an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld."
9) In Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the three elements enunciated in Pavanendra Narayan Verma's case (referred supra) have been attracted and therefore set aside the order of termination, challenged before them, holding that the impugned order was ex facie stigmatic and punitive.
2 (2002) 1 SCC 520
PK, J
6 WP_41339_2014
10) But, coming to the case on hand, the impugned termination order cannot be said to be stigmatic or punitive and the three elements, referred to above, are not attracted to the case on hand. Hence, the said judgments have no application to the case of the petitioner and the reliance placed by the learned counsel in this regard is misplaced.
11) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find any error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned termination order warranting interference of this Court.
12) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 15-09-2023.
sur