Shri Raj Pal Singh vs Director General, Cisf And ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 756 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.1996 passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect on payment of one months' salary in lieu of notice period.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. A copy of the order of appointment of the petitioner is placed on record which is dated 30.5.1994. By the aforesaid order the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/X-ray Assistant. It was further stated in the said letter that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of 2 years and that in the event of his being found un-suitable for retention in the force at any time either during the period of his initial training or during his period of probation his services would be liable to be terminated in accordance with the provisions of rules 19 of the CISF Rules, 1969 and para 2 of the agreement executed by him with the President of India.

The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.6.1996 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. However, the aforesaid order of suspension was revoked by the respondents by an order dated 2.7.1996 with immediate effect. Subsequently thereafter the aforesaid order was passed on 18.7.1996 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the order is punitive and was passed by way of punishment and that the said order is liable to be set aside as the order was passed without initiating any departmental proceedings and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated by the respondent on the allegation that the petitioner had brought a girl unauthorisedly Along with another Force personnel in the dispensary and since a departmental proceeding was contemplated the petitioner was put under suspension. It was also submitted that the respondents however, without initiation and completion of the said departmental proceeding proceeded to take a short-cut method and terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his services were not satisfactory.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the termination of services of the petitioner is a termination simpliciter. The contention was that although at one stage the respondent though of initiation of a departmental proceeding against him and placed him under suspension but alter on since it was found that the petitioner did not indulge in any immoral action the order of suspension was revoked and no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. However, as the overall performance and conduct of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and suitable , and it was observed that the petitioner was not likely to become an efficient member of the Force the petitioner was discharged form service as per provisions of rule 19 of FISF Rules, 1989 within the period of probation of two years. She also placed before me the original records relating to the services of the petitioner.

5. I have perused the records placed before me minutely. The petitioner admittedly was appointed on probation by the order dated 10.5.1994 and therefore, the petitioner continued to be on probation up to 9.5.1996. It transpires that his probation period was extended for a period of six months i.e. up to 9.11.1996 as his performance with the respondent a number of complaints against his conduct and punctuality were received and the petitioner was personally advised to improve. Reports were also received by the respondents about incidents of minor misconduct such as misbehavior with colleagues, absence from Unit Line etc.. He had also brought a girl unauthorisedly Along with another Force personnel in the dispensary. In respect of the said incident the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. However, since the petitioner did not indulge in any immoral action his suspension was revoked on administrative grounds. However, the respondent proceeded against the petitioner as per provisions of Rule 19 of CISF Rules, 1969 read with para 2 of the agreement read with rule 15 of the CISF Rules, 1969 and discharged the petitioner from service in exercise of the aforesaid powers vested on the respondents.

6. The question that was argued and is required to be decided is whether the aforesaid order could be said to be punitive and passed by way of punishment. Various lapses of the petitioner during his service tenure have been brought out on record. Although the petitioner was suspended from service in contemplation of a departmental proceeding however, no departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner and the order of suspension was later on revoked. During the period of probation the services of the petitioner were assessed as to whether he could be retained in service or should be relieved.

7. Rule 19 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules provides that the appointing authority on expiry of the period of such probation or such extended period is required to pass an order declaring that the probationer had completed the period of probation satisfactorily and is suitable for confirmation in that if he is considered as unsuitable the probationer shall be liable to be discharged in the case of a direct recruit or reverted to his substantive post in the case of a promote. Therefore, the rule empowers the appointing authority to consider as to whether the petitioner who has a probationer completed the period of probation satisfactorily and is suitable for confirmation in that rank of that he should be discharged in case his service is found to be unsuitable. The respondent, in the light of the aforesaid provisions considered the records of the petitioner and upon consideration of his over all performance and conduct was of the opinion that the petitioner was not likely to become an efficient member of the Force and therefore, took action to discharge the petitioner in terms of rule 19(2) of the CISF Rules. In the context of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the said order passed by the respondent could in any manner be termed as punitive. It also cannot be held that the said order was passed by way of punishment. The discharge of the petitioner was a termination simpliciter and not as a punishment which is also apparent from the note-sheet dated 12.7.1996 put to the competent authority in which it is clearly mentioned that if approved then an order of termination simpliciter might be passed in this case which was duly approved by the appointing authority of the petitioner on 17.7.1996.

8. Under the terms of probation or contract of employment of probationer, the employer has absolute right to assess the suitability of the petitioner before his confirmation is ordered. Such assessment is to be with regard to his suitability relating to his performance in work as also his general behavior and conduct during employment.While doing so the employer may embark upon such assessment taking into consideration any complaint received as against said person and any termination resulting from such assessment cannot be said to be by way of punishment or penalty and is a termination simpliciter.

9. In view of the aforesaid position I find no infirmity in the order of discharge passed against the petitioner in terms of Rule 19 of the CISF Rules, 1969. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.