RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.1996 passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect on payment of one months' salary in lieu of notice period.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. A copy of the order of appointment of the petitioner is placed'on record which is dated 30.5.1994. By the aforesaid order the petitioner was appointed as a Constable/X-ray Assistant. It was further stated An the said letter that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of 2 years and that in the event of his being found un-suitabie for retention in the? force at any time either during the period of his initial training or during his period of probation his services would be liable to be terminated in accordance with the provisions of rules 19 of the CISF Rules, 1969 and para 2 of the agreement executed by him with the President of India. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.6.1996 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. However, the aforesaid order of suspension was revoked by the respondents by an order dated 2.7.1996 with immediate effect. Subsequently thereafter the aforesaid order was passed on 16.7.1996 terminating , the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The said order is challenged in' this writ petition on the ground that the order is punitive and was passed by way of punishment and that the said order is liable to be set aside as the order was passed without initiating any departmental proceedings and without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner contended that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated by the respondent on the allegation that the petitioner had brought a girl unauthorisedly alongwith'another Force personnel in the dispensary and since a departmental proceeding was contemplated the petitioner was put under suspension. It was also submitted that the respondents however, without initiation and completion of the said departmental proceeding proceeded to take a short-cut method and terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his services were not satisfactory.