SAROJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the period of probation after expiry of initial period be extended repeatedly, to be precise, as many as 4(four) times, advising the probationer to improve his performance without specifically indicating the area in which he is required to improve and simultaneously initiating departmental proceeding for alleged misconduct? Is such an action bona fide, legal and justified calling for no interference in judicial review? The petitioner cries loud demanding justice against the alleged injustice done to him. He tried to substantiate pleadings as follows:

(2.) I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Das, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India and other respondents.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned decisions taken by the Internal Screening Committee at the CISF Headquarters in its meetings held on 17.9.2004, 26.5.2005 and 31.10.2005 regarding extension of probation period of the petitioner as well as the consequential impugned orders dated 6.8.2004, 17.9.2004, 27.5.2005 and 3.11.2005 issued by the respondent authorities are arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal inasmuch as the same are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice and administrative fair play in action. He also submits that the impugned decisions and orders were issued without any application of mind to and without taking into consideration the clean service record as well as efficient performance of duties rendered by the petitioner. According to Mr. Choudhury, the aforesaid decisions and orders were passed at the behest of some influential officials of the CISF who want to settle some personal score with the petitioner, and this is evident from the fact that a show-cause notice for Director General's displeasure was once issued and later on it had to be withdrawn on receipt of satisfactory reply from him and thereafter, the show-cause notice on the alleged misconduct and misbehaviour was issued against him at the instance of some officers who are not happy with the brilliant and satisfactory services rendered by the petitioner for which he has received appreciations from the higher officers concerned including the Police Medal from the President of India. The said officers are desperate to get the petitioner reverted to a lower post but the same could not be materialized due to interim order passed by this Court at the time of issuing the notice on 8.3.2006, yet, however, they have been successful in getting the minor punishment/penalty of "censure" imposed on him vide order dated 18.1.2007 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Pers.) vide No. V-15014/5/2005/L&R/234, i.e., during pendency of hearing of this writ petition. For filing of FIR, the petitioner alone cannot be held responsible as indicated in the statement of allegations and for that he alone cannot be punished/penalized by way of awarding "censure". Mr. Choudhury, Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be made scapegoat for the collective action or step taken by the CISF unit as per the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Girish Chandra Sarma,2007 2 SCC 206.