M.BALASUNDARAM Vs. SENIOR COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.06.2010 and the order dated 05.10.10, by which the petitioner was terminated from the services of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

(2.) THE petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Constable/Driver in the CISF during 2008. Having been successful in the selection, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment dated 11.12.2008, whereby the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Constable/Driver in CISF in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay Rs.2000/- and directed to report at Chatishgarh on 27.12.2008 for joining the post and to attend basic training. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, the petitioner was placed under probation for a period of two years. The petitioner had completed about 1+ years of service, when the impugned order was served terminating his service. The petitioner was informed that he is not found suitable for permanent appointment to the force and the petitioner was paid one month pay in lieu of one month notice as per the relevant rules and he was terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of CISF and by order dated 05.10.2010, the appeal was rejected. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Senior Panel counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the material fact that he was involved in C.C.No.13 of 2004 and remitted fine amount of Rs.1500/- and his appointment only a provisional appointment and he was under probation and as per Rule 25(2) and Rule 26(4) of the CISF 2001 (amended 2007), during the period of probation, if the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the force is not fit for permanent appointment and on the ground of furnishing false or incorrect information, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of the probationer by tendering a notice of one month or one month pay in lieu thereof. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of termination is valid.