Delhi High Court
Pradyumn Kumar Tomar vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 May, 2013
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) Nos.2434/2013, 2439/2013, 2511/2013, 2513/2013 &
2514/2013
% Date of decision: 30th May, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 2434/2013
DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7.
with
+ W.P.(C) 2439/2013
PRADYUMN KUMAR TOMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7.
with
+ W.P.(C) 2511/2013
SHARWAN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 & 7.
W.P.(C) No.2434/2013 & Conn. Matters Page 1 of 6
with
+ W.P.(C) 2513/2013
VAREITHING A. SHATSANG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Soayib Qureshi, Adv.
and
+ W.P.(C) 2514/2013
ASHWANI KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Adv. for R-3, 4 &7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 30.05.2013
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
1. The writ petitioners seek before us quashing of the order dated
9th February, 2013 which was passed by the respondent No.3 vide which the
services of the petitioners who were 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 these petitioners by an
identical order passed in the case of Deepak Kumar in WP(C) No.2434/2013
and which reads as under:-
"DIG/HEAD QUARTER
CENRTAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
HOME MINISTRY
RTC-Arakkonam
Post - Security Campus
Ditt. Vellore, Tamil Nadu
Date: 09.02.2013
Letter: E-37035/RTC (A) CISF/3d (B) ASI/EXE/TRG/2013/887
TERMINATION ORDER
1. Whereas CISF No.014506750 (Roll No.8201500154)
ASI/EXE (U/T) (3rd Bath) Deepak 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/12/3652 dated
22.05.2010 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 NO.014506750 (Roll
No. 8201500154) ASI/EXE (U/T) (3rd Bath) Deepak 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. 014506750
(Roll No.8201500154) ASI-EXE (U/T) (3rd Bath) Deepak Kumar is
empowered to terminate his service during the period of probation, if
it is of the opinion that he is not fit for permanent 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.014506750 (Roll No.8201500154) ASI/EXE (U/T) (3rd Bath)
Deepak Kumar for termination of his services. He shall be deemed to
be no more in service of CISF with immediate effect.
To
CISF : Through Coy
NO.120405149, Commandar
ASI/Exe (UT) Kakatiya" Coy in
Ashwani Kumar duplicate for
S/o Shri Ramakant service and
Prasad, returned the
CISF RTC ackd, copy to this
ARAKKONAM." office for record.
3. The petitioners have 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 neither
issued any notice to show cause nor conducted any form of disciplinary
inquiry. The petitioners have stated that they were issued notice that they
had indulged in malpractice without any details being furnished to them. The
action of the respondent is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. The petitioners have 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 orders were passed during the pendency of the writ
petitions, a substantive challenge thereto could not be laid in the main writ
petitions.
5. The petitioners submit that the appellate orders dated 29.4.2013
in WP(C) Nos.2511/13 & 2434/13 and 30.4.2013 in WP(C) Nos.2439/2013,
2413/13 & 2514/13 are 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 petitioners have placed reliance on an order dated 20 th
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 petitioners in the order dated 9th February, 2013
terminating their services had been passed in similar circumstances as of the
petitioner in WP(C) No.1756/2013.
7. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Central Government's Standing
Counsel has handed over a communication dated 28th May, 2013 received by
the Assistant Inspector General, Law and Regulations informing her that the
ratio of the judgment dated 20th March, 2013 in Yogender Singh (supra)
squarely applies to these cases which deserve to be disposed of on identical
terms.
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 9 th February,
2013 as well as the appellate orders dated 29th April, 2013 and 30th
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.
10. These writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
11. Dasti.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 30, 2013
ak
