Shree Manas vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2429 Tel

            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