LAWS(APH)-2016-8-19

N. KALYANI Vs. THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

Decided On August 24, 2016
N. Kalyani Appellant
V/S
The Central Industrial Security Force Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Erukala) Community and native of Warangal District, Telangana State. She passed SSC Examination held in March 2009 in first division. She applied for the post of female constable pursuant to a notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 09.01.2013. She appeared for written test on 12.05.2013. She was provisionally selected by proceedings dated 28.02.2015 of the third respondent. She was sent for training to CISF RTC Barwaha, Post Daria Mahal, District Khargaon, Madhya Pradesh. She was put on probation for a period of two years. She reported for training on 11.12.2015. While she was undergoing training she was issued an order of termination on 30.07.2016 on the ground that she is not fit for permanent appointment in the post. Challenging the said order of termination dated 30.07.2016 the present Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) This Court, by an order dated 09.08.2016, directed the learned Assistant Solicitor General to obtain instructions and on the basis of the instructions, he submits that the order of termination was passed for furnishing wrong information in the verification form submitted by the petitioner at the time of training.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was involved in CC No.977 of 2008 as an accused, the same was compromised by compounding the offence before the Lok Adalat on 26.11.2011 i.e., much before the application for the post and in those circumstances she did not disclose the fact of her involvement in the said offence. He relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (SLP (c) No.20525 of 2011, dated 21.07.2016). He also relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (Civil Appeal No.1020 of 2011, dated 13.04.2016). He further submitted that the impugned order of termination was passed contrary to Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short CISF Rules, 2001).