Pawan Das Cisf No.082303462 vs Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 853 Jhar

                                 1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.1646 of 2009
                              -------

Pawan Das CISF No.082303462 ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Minsitry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), (Ministry of Home Affairs), CISF unit, B.S.L., Bokaro District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

3. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), (Ministry of Home Affairs), CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

4. Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, B.S.L, Bokaro.

5. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), (Ministry of Home Affairs), Regional Training Centre (RTC) Arakkonam, Vellore, Tamil Nadu.

                                               ...       ... Respondents
                                     -------
        CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                     -------
        For the Petitioner      : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Adv.
        For the Respondents     : Mr. Binod Singh, adv.
                                     -------
10/22.02.2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order

dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Commandant, Central

Industrial Security Forces (respondent No.5) whereby the

petitioner has been terminated from service with immediate

effect.

3. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination

is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, mala-fide and

unreasoned. He further submits that it is also violative of

principle of natural justice as no show cause was given and

no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner; as

such the impugned order should be quashed and set aside.

He further submits that the disability has

occurred during course of employment. He further referred

to the counter affidavit and submits that though in the

impugned order there was no reason assigned for

termination; however, in the counter affidavit the

respondents have taken ground that the petitioner was

suffering from "Night Blindness" as such his service was

not confirmed. In this regard learned counsel referred to a

judgment passed by Himachal Pradesh High Court being

CWP(T) No.4520 of 2008 and 4521 of 2008 in the case of

Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

reported in (2010) 3 SLR 76 wherein the High Court has

observed that the matter should have been viewed

sympathetically since the petitioner had already been

selected after passing the rigorous of selection process.

Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned

counsel submits that the respondents may be directed to

reconsider the case of the petitioner.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that there is no error in the impugned order as the

petitioner has been terminated as per provision contained

in Rule 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001 wherein it does not

require to issue any show cause notice before passing the

termination order in case of probationers; as such, the

instant writ application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Replying to the aforesaid contention, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may

be granted liberty to approach the concerned respondent

raising his grievance and the respondents may be directed

to reconsider his case sympathetically in the light of the

judgment passed in the case of Hoshiar Sigh (supra)

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents available on record and

the averments made in the respective affidavits; it appears

that the petitioner has been terminated from service under

Rule 26(iv) of CISF Rules 2001. From perusal of the

aforesaid provision it clearly transpires that during the

period of probation or extension, the appointing authority

may terminate the service of an employee without assigning

any reason by tendering one month notice.

However, in the light of observation made by the

Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hoshiar

Singh (supra), the petitioner will be at liberty to represent

the concerned respondent for redressal of his grievance

within a period of ten weeks from today.

If any such representation is filed within the

aforesaid stipulated period; the same shall be disposed of

in accordance with law and in the light of observation made

in the case of Hoshiar Singh (supra) within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of such representation.

7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ

application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-