Shyam Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Vipin Sanghi, J

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the termination order dated 29.9.2018 as well as the

appellate order dated 2.4.2019 passed by the respondents. By the second order the petitionerâ€​s appeal against his termination has been rejected.

The petitioner states that he applied for the post of ASI in CISF which was advertised vide the recruitment notice no. F. No.3/1/2016-P&P-II. The

petitioner states that he passed the examination in Paper I and Paper-II held on 20.3.2016 and 05.6.2016 respectively. He states that he thereafter

participated in the physical endurance test on 16.7.2016 at Greater Noida and qualified the same and then qualified the mains examination held on

18.12.2016. He was called for the medical examination held from 13.3.2017 to 18.03.2017 at Jalandhar, Punjab and he was found to be fit and eligible

for the post of ASI in CISF. He was appointed for the post of ASI/EXE in CISF provisionally and he joined the post on 9.2.2018. He states that his

superior officers directed him to go for color vision check-up and under the instruction of Dr. M.N.Sharma, Medical Officer, CISF, the petitioner went

to MIOT International wherein he was medically examined for the purpose of color vision check-up. On 13.3.2018 he was found to be fit with normal

color vision. He states that the respondents terminated his services without considering his medical examination reports dated 13.3.2017 -18.3.2017

and 13.3.2018, in which the petitioner has been declared fit. 3. The termination order dated 29.9.2018 reads as follows:-

“TERMINATION ORDER

Whereas CISF No. 180406504 (Roll No. 2201057913) ASI/EXE (U/T) Shyam Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal of 9th Batch has been provisionally

appointed for the post of ASI/Exe in CISF on the basis of provisional Offer of Appointment issued vide CISF RTC Arakkonam letter No. E-

14099/RTC(A)/CISF/9th(B) ASI/Exe/Trg./2018/1185 dated 08.01.2018, after his selection in CISF through Staff Selection Commission (SSC)

examination-2016 and as per provision of appointment order, his is on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment.

Whereas, in accordance with the instructions issued vide CISF HQrs.Letter No.M- 20015(18)/CISF/Dir-Med/ColourVision/2016/966 dated

26.09.2016 that „colour vision test should be done once at the time of recruitment and later on at the time of basic trainingâ€, the medical

examination of colour vison test of the ASIs/Exe (9th Batch) was carried out at this RTC Hospital and he had been found to be having “Defective

Colour Vision†vide Senior Medical Officer, RTC Arakkonam, Inter Office Note No. E-38099/CISF/Hosp/RtC(A) Colour vision/18-183 dated

16.03.2018. Therefore, he had been further reviewed through medical examination by a Medical board constituted at Composite Hospital CRPF, GC-

1, Ajmer, Rajasthan on 09.05.2018, and aforesaid Medical board vide proceeding dated 11-05-2018 had declared ASI/Exe(UT) Shyam Singh

“UNFITâ€​ due to defective colour vision CP-IV.

Whereas, by virtue of his being found UNFIT for service due to defective colour vision as stated above, CISF No. 180406504 (roll No.

2201057913) ASI/EXE (U/T) Shyam Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal of 9 th Batch was issued with Show Cause Notice No. E-

37035/CISF/RTC/(A)/9th(B)ASI/Exe/Termination/Trg/2018/10229dated22.09.2018, proposing to terminate his services by giving him an opportunity to

submit representation against the proposal with one month. The show cause notice No. (10229) dated 22.09.2018 was acknowledged by ASI/Exe

(UT) Shyam Singh on 26.09.18 and he had submitted his representation on 29th Sept 2018 in which he had stated that since he is found medically unfit

due to defective colour vision by the board, the authority had taken a suitable action after consider his DME report.

Whereas, representation dated 29th Sep. 2018 submitted by aforesaid ASI /Exe (UT) had been examined: He has not brought forth any reason in

his representation as to why his services should not be terminated on the basis of being found unfit by a medical board. Therefore, it has been decided

to terminate his services with immediate effect since he is unfit to be retained in CISF due to defective colour vision CP-IV as certified by medical

board dated 11.05.2018.

NOW, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the Proviso of Rules 25 & 26 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules-2001, I the undersigned hereby

terminate the services of CISF No.180406504 (Roll No. 2201057913) ASI /EXE (UT) Shyam Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal of 9th Batch with immediate

effect.

CISF No. 180406504 (Roll No. 2201057913) ASI/EXE(U/T) Shyam Singh S/o Shri Roshan Lal of 9 th batch, CISF RTC Arakkonam Shall

acknowledge receipt of this order.â€​ (emphasis supplied)

The appellate order dated 2.4.2019 reads as under:-

“ORDER

WHEREAS, the services of No. 180406504 Ex-ASI/Exe (UT) Shyam Singh formerly of CISF RTC Arakkonam, hereinafter referred to as the

appellant, was terminated by Sr. Commandant, CISF RTC Arakkonam vide order No. (0346) dated 29.09.2018 under Rule-25 of CISF Rules 2001.

AND WHEREAS, aggrieved with the termination order, the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 19.02.2019 to AIG, CISF FHQrs., New

Delhi which has been re-directed to us by AIG/L&R, CISF FHQrs for disposal of his representation by IG/SS, as appeal against termination lies to

IsG. The petitioner has put-fourth the following points in the representation and requested for re-instatement into service:-

He has been terminated from service on the basis of the medical examination dated 11.05.18 without considering the medical examination cleared by

the petitioner on previous two occasions i.e, during the course of recruitment which was held on 13.03.17 to 18.03.17 and further at MIOT

International Hospital on 13.03.18 during the course of training. The authority did not give any weightage to the said tests conducted by your good

office during pre & post recruitment of the petitioner.

AND WHEREAS, I have meticulously examined the representation filed by the petitioner. As per the guidelines of MHA dated 27.02.13 circulated

vide CISF HQ letter No. 1233 dated 18/22.04.2013, “Any person who has defective vision or is colour blind will not be recruited in future. If any

person is wrongly recruited despite having defect in vision or despite being colour blind, he will be promptly removed from service as soon as the

defect is noticed. Further, MHA letter No. 941 dated 22.09.2016 circulated vide CISF HQ letter No. 966 dated 26.09.16 says “colour vision test

should be done once at the time of recruitment and later on at the time of basic trainingâ€​.

AND WHEREAS, I have verified the case file and found that the petitioner was examined by the Sr. Medical Officer, RTC Arakkonam on

12.03.2018 and found to be having “Defective Colour Visionâ€. On the very next day, a private hospital has examined the petitioner and certified

that he is having a “Normal visionâ€.Since the two medical reports are contradictory to each other, his case was examined by the DIG/Director

(Medical) CISF HQrs New Delhi and the petitioner was sent for review medical examination at the Composite Hospital CRPF, GC-1 Ajmer,

Rajasthan, where he was medically examined on 10.05.2018 by a Board of Officers consisting of three medical officers (Eye Specialists) and the

Board declared him “UNFIT†due to defective colour vision CP-IV vide their board proceeding dated 11.05.2018. Hence, plea of the petitioner is

not tenable; as the appointing authority has rightly terminated the petitioner from service as per rule 25 of CISF Rules 2001.

NOW, THEREFORE, I do not find any extenuating circumstances to interfere with the order of termination passed by the appointing authority and

hereby REJECT the appeal petition dated 19.02.2018 filed against the termination order being devoid of any merit.

No. 180406504 Ex.-ASI/Exe (UT) Shyam Singh formerly of CISF RTC Arakkonam shall acknowledge receipt of this order.â€​

From the above, it would be seen that the termination order and the appellate order made reference to medical examination of the petitioner at

Composite Hospital, Ajmer, Rajasthan, wherein he was found to be unfit.

When the matter came up before this Court, we asked the petitioner whether he was examined by a Senior Medical Officer, RTC Arakkonam on

12.3.2018, and at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, GC-1, Ajmer, Rajasthan, by the Board of Officers on 10.5.2018. The petitioner disputed the said

position. He stated that he had not been so examined and found “UNFITâ€​.

Consequently, the respondents were directed to produce the record in relation to the petitionerâ€s medical examination. Today, learned counsel for the

respondents has tendered in Court the certified copies of the medical examination of the petitioner undertaken on 12.3.2018 by the Senior Medical

officer at Hospital, Regional Training Centre, Arakkonam. The Out-Patient Slip records that during examination the petitioner was found to have

defective color vision. He was referred to Ophthalmologist Government/CGHS Hospital for evaluation of color vision. The appellate order dated

2.4.2019 records that there were two contradictory reports, namely, the report dated 12.3.2019 finding him UNFIT, and other in favour of the

petitioner where he was found to be medically fit and, consequently, he was sent for medical examination by the Review Board to the Composite

Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The respondents have produced the record relating to the petitionerâ€s medical examination at Composite

Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer, Rajasthan. Proceedings of the Board-consisting of three doctors who were specialists have also been produced, which show

that the said Board examined six candidates out of whom five were found to be UNFIT- including the petitioner, and only one was found fit. It is not

the petitionerâ€s case that the respondents have acted malafidely. No such allegation has been made. He pleaded that since there are two contrary

reports, the petitioner may be referred to some other Hospital for re-examination.

We are not inclined to adopt that course. As noticed above, the petitioner was found to be unfit on 12.3.2018. Accordingly, another examination

was advised from a government/CGHS hospital. He was found to be fit by the Government/CGHS Hospital on 13.3.2018. Since there were two

contradictory reports, he was sent for medical review by the Board to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Ajmer, Rajasthan. That review has already

taken place by competent and qualified specialist doctors, and it is not for this Court to again send the petitioner for another medical examination only

to satisfy the petitionerâ€​s wish. The respondents are the ultimate authority to conduct the medical examination and it is them, who have to be satisfied

with regard to the medical fitness of their personnel.

Dismissed.