MANORANJAN PATTANAIK Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Manoranjan Pattanaik, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order in No.14098/CISF/DAR/AD-I/SKS/97-1899 dated 13.5.1997 of the 3rd respondent and order bearing No.E-30013/Termination/AD-II/SWS/97-4799 dated 21.8.1997 of the first respondent and order No.V-11014/5/97-L&R//483 dated 17.12.1998 of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and other benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as HC (Driver) on probation for a period of two years by the commandant, CISF Unit, Nalco, Angul, Nalwa Nagar, Orissa. At the time of recruitment and appointment, the petitioner was asked to sign an agreement as prescribed by Section 15 in Appendix-A of CISF Act, 1968, besides the petitioner was asked to sign an attestation form also, which contained various details. During the period of probation, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the 5th respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why his services should not be determined as he has suppressed in his attestation form about his involvement in a criminal case at the time of appointment. On 7.4.97, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining the facts and the reasons for filling up the attestation form. Once again the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 13.5.97 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal on merits and confirmed the orders of termination. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the first respondent to interfere, which the first respondent also declined. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) . The petitioner contends that the proceedings of respondents 1 to 3 impugned suffers with errors apparent on the face of the record and the termination order is not termination simplicitor, but it is a punitive termination casting stigma and without holding an enquiry or framing charges, as provided in Section 29 of The CISF Act read with CSSF Rules. The impugned proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The termination order is violative of Section 19 and 12 (1)(b) of The CISF Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The information furnished in the attestation form cannot be considered as a suppression of fact and violation of any of the rules or agreement and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.