EX Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . - The writ petitioner was appointed in the regular vacancy under the Central Industrial Security Force. While he was on probation, he was terminated from the service. The order of termination dated 14th Jan., 1998 has been appealed. The appellate authority with reason rejected the said appeal. Hence this writ petition. The relevant extract of the termination notice is quoted below :

(2.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the termination notice was based on clause 2(a) of the Agreement in the Form in Appendix "A" to the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 read with rules 15 and 19 of the said Rules. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, further submits that clause 2(a) had under-gone a judicial review by the Apex court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly reported in 1986 (3) SCC 156. Paragraph 112 of the said judgment has been relied upon by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, which is qoted below :

(3.) In the case of Brojo Nath Ganguly the Apex Court considered such identical clause in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances wherein the permanent employee of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation was being terminated by virtue of a particular clause in the like nature. Since a person having permanent employment in a public sector and Government organisation enjoins support from the Constitution and specially Art. 311 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court observed that such clause was opposed to public policy. In the instant case the appointment was obtained by the writ petitioner by exercising fraud by giving deliberate mis-statement in his application. It might be true that the order of termination did not disclose any reason. The appellate authority considered all aspects and passed a reasoned order.