Delhi High Court
Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs Union Jof India & Ors on 26 July, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
$~
10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.1813/2013
% Date of decision: 26th July, 2013
RAVI RANJAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mrs. Rekha Palli,
Ms. Punam Singh and
Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Saqib and Ms. Shipra
Shukla, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petitioner seek before us quashing of the order
dated 9th February, 2013 which was passed by the respondent No.5
vide which the services of the petitioner who was serving as ASIs
(Executive) with the CISF were terminated during the period of
probation on the allegation of malpractices during the
recruitment/selection process conducted by the respondents to the
said post.
2. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner by
an order which reads as under:-
WP(C) No.1813/2013 page 1 of 5
"Office of the Dy. Inspector General
Cenrtal Industrial Security Force
(Ministry of Home Affairs)
Regional Training Centre, Arakkonam
Post : Suraksh Campus,
District : Vellore (Tamilnadu)
Date: 09.02.2013
Letter No.E-37035/RTC (A) CISF/3rd(B)ASI/EXE/Trg./
2013/883
TERMINATION ORDER
1. Whereas CISF No.103280765 (Roll
rd
No.3206012343) ASI/EXe (U/T) (3 Batch) Ravi Ranjan
Kumar has been provisionally appointed for the post of
ASI/Exe in CISF vide CISF RTC Arakkonam Letter No.E-
14099/RTC(A)/CISF/Trg/12/4784 dated 12.06.2012 and
letter of even No.(6202) dated 21.07.2012 subject to the
condition that his service is liable to be terminated if there
is prima face proof of having indulged in any malpractice
during the examination. As per information received from
Staff Selection Commission through CISF Hqrs.,New
Delhi, CISF No.103280765 (Roll No.3206012343)
ASI/EXe (U/T) (3rd Batch) Ravi Ranjan Kumar indulged in
malpractice to qualify the examination conducted by the
SSC for the post of ASI/Exe - 2011 in CISF. He has been
on probation for a period of two years from the date of his
appointment and still continues to be so.
2. Whereas by virtue of the provision contained in
Rule 25 of CISF Rules, 2001, the appointing authority of
CISF No.103280765 (Roll No.3206012343) ASI/EXe
(U/T) (3rd Batch) Ravi Ranjan Kumar is empowered to
terminate his services during the period of probation, if it
is of the opinion that he is not fit for permanent
WP(C) No.1813/2013 page 2 of 5
appointment in CISF.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred
upon the undersigned by virtue of Rule 25 of CISF Rules
2001, I hereby issue one month's salary in lieu of one
month's notice to CISF No.103280765 (Roll
No.3206012343) ASI/EXe (U/T) (3rd Batch) Ravi Ranjan
Kumar for termination of his services. He shall be deemed
to be no more in service of CISF with immediate effect.
To
CISF No.103280765 Through Coy
ASI/EXe (U/T) Commander
Ravi Ranjan Kumar "Cholas" Coy in
S/o Shri Anil Kumar duplicate for
Singh service and
CISF RTC returned the ackd.
ARAKKONAM. copy to this office
for record."
3. The petitioner has challenged the case primarily on the
ground that even though the termination was during the period of
probation however the order was stigmatic as per alleged
misconduct and in the nature of alleged malpractice in securing his
appointment as an Assistant Sub Inspector with the CISF. It is an
admitted position before us that the respondent did not conduct any
form of disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner has stated that he was
issued notice that he had indulged in malpractice without any
details being furnished to him. The action of the respondent is
clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.
WP(C) No.1813/2013 page 3 of 5
4. The petitioner has also contended that he had preferred
departmental appeal on 18.2.2013 under Section 9 of the CISF Act
against the said termination. An oral submission is made before us
to the effect that inasmuch as the appellate order was passed during
the pendency of the writ petitions, a substantive challenge thereto
could not be laid in the main writ petitions.
5. The petitioner submits that the appellate order dated
26.4.2013 is not sustainable for the same reasons that the order of
termination dated 9th February, 2013 has to be held as being
violative of principles of natural justice as well as law.
6. The petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 20th
March, 2013 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1756/2013
titled as Yogender Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. by this court
who was identically placed as the petitioner in the order dated 9 th
February, 2013 terminating his services had been passed in similar
circumstances as of the petitioner in WP(C) No.1756/2013.
7. Ms. Saqib, learned counsel for the respondents has handed
over a communication dated 11th July, 2013 received by him
informing him that the ratio of the judgment dated 20 th March,
2013 in Yogender Singh (supra) squarely applies to these cases
which deserve to be disposed of on identical terms.
WP(C) No.1813/2013 page 4 of 5
8. Our attention is drawn to the appellate orders dated 29th
April, 2013 and 30th April, 2013 which have been placed on record.
We have heard counsel for the parties on illegality and the validity
of these orders as well. For all the foregoing reasons we direct as
follows:
i) We hereby hold that the impugned order dated 9th
February, 2013 as well as the appellate orders dated 26th
April, 2013 are contrary to law and violative of principles of
natural justice and therefore hereby set aside and quashed.
ii) The respondents shall pass consequential orders
permitting the petitioners to continue their training within a
period of 4 weeks from today.
9. It is however made clear that respondents shall be free to
take suitable action, if they so find, following the procedure which
is in accordance with law.
These writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
Dasti.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
JULY 26, 2013/mk
WP(C) No.1813/2013 page 5 of 5
