Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs Union of India and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—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. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner by an order which reads as under:-

Office of the Dy. Inspector General

Central 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

Whereas CISF No. 103280765 (Roll No. 3206012343) ASI/EXE (U/T) (3rd 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.

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 appointment in CISF.

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 ASI/EXe (U/T)

Ravi Ranjan Kumar S/o. Shri Anil Kumar Singh

CISF RTC ARAKKONAM.

Through Coy Commander

"Cholas" Coy in duplicate for service and returned the ackd. copy to this office for record.

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.

The petitioner has also contended that he had preferred departmental appeal on 18.2.2013 u/s 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.

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.

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 9th February, 2013 terminating his services had been passed in similar circumstances as of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1756/2013.

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 20th March, 2013 in Yogender Singh (supra) squarely applies to these cases which deserve to be disposed of on identical terms.

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.

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.