RAVINDER PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has sought for setting aside the impugned order dated 7. 1. 2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Pers), Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs terminating the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF) and also for a direction from this Court for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with effect from the date of his termination granting all service benefits.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition is that having passed in the Civil Service Examination, 1994 and been recommended, he was appointed to the post of Assistant Commandant in CISF and accordingly, he joined the said post on 8. 1. 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to National Industrial Security Academy, Hakimpet, Hyderabad for under going training in various indoor and outdoor subjects. But in the course of training, the petitioner got fracture in his right leg and underwent medical treatment, whereupon, although the training of the Assistant Commandant was held, the petitioner could not attend the rest part of the training. The petitioner joined his first posting at CISF Unit at Khetari Copper Corporation in Rajasthan on 10. 4. 1997 and then at CISF Unit, Sheetapur on 13. 6. 1997. From there, he was sent for sector attachment training till 5. 7. 1997 and from 4. 8. 97 to 4. 11. 97, he went on medical leave due to sciatica and disc problem and his leave was regularized. Then the petitioner was directed to proceed to Raj Mahal Camp. On 8. 1. 1998, the petitioner was staying in a Guest House and at about 5. 30 p. m. the petitioner received a telephone call from Sub-Inspector (Ex) R. N. S. Mahapatra that an incident occurred in Hizuketa area where some CISF personnel was injured. The petitioner rushed to ECL hospital at Urjanagar to see the jowans and conducted the enquiry about the occurrence. He also informed the Commandant, ECL, Sheetalpur and lodged FIR with the local police. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 14. 1. 1998 was issued asking the petitioner to explain the matter. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24. 1. 1998 giving detailed explanation, whereupon the respondent No. 4 expressed his displeasure. The petitioner again went on leave for 15 days from 2. 5. 1998 and he was sick again and subsequently joined on 16. 5. 1998. The petitioner was asked to proceed on an urgent duty in Kanustaria camp, but the petitioner fell ill. Then again the petitioner was detailed for some course. Later by an order dated 4. 6. 1999; the petitioner was posted from CISF Unit ECL, Sheetalpur (West Bengal) to CISF Unit, ONGC Tripura. The petitioner went on three days casual leave from 22. 7. 1999 but till 14. 12. 1999, he could not resume his duties as he was suffering from jaundice and fever from 29. 7. 1999 to 11. 10. 1999 and he had to avail leave on medical advice. He also enjoyed paternity leave from 12. 10. 1999 to 26. 10. 1999. He joined his duties on 15. 12. 1999 and made his explanation for his absence on 17. 12. 1999. In the meanwhile, a memorandum dated 2. 10. 1999 (Annexure-11) was issued to the petitioner advising him to improve his shortcomings/lapses to which the petitioner replied on 1. 12. 1999 (Annexure-12 ). Thereafter, the impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner was made on 7. 1. 2000 as aforesaid.

(3.) THE respondents while filing their counter affidavits contended therein that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Assistant Commandant, CISF on probation for a period of two years with further condition that in case his performance was found unsatisfactory or he failed in the test prescribed basic training, he would be liable to be discharged from service. As per service condition, the petitioner was detailed for basic training in the National Industrial Security Academy, (in short NISA) Hakimpet, Hyderabad, but he did not take adequate interest to qualify himself in the basic training. In the result, he failed in Paper-VI and X and 9mm pistol firing which was revealed from the result published by NISA on 26. 6. 1997 vide Annexure-R 1 to the counter-affidavit, and the petitioner also did not attend the outdoor test due to leg injury. Subsequently, the petitioner was given two more chances to appear at the supplementary test from 24. 4. 1998 to 2. 5. 1998 and from 20. 10. 1998 to 27. 10. 1998, but in both time, he failed in P. T. and Drill. As such, the result published by NISA, the petitioner was declared "not qualified", which would be evident from Annexure- R 2 to the counter-affidavit. Further during the probation period while posted in the vital unit of CISF i. e. Eastern Coal Fields, Seetalpur, the senior officers noticed that (i) the petitioner is in the habit of shirking responsibilities which led to open firing by CISF personnel of Rajmahal camp; (ii) he feigned sickness at RTC, Barwaha where he was detailed to undergo commando course, after reporting late by one week; (3) he obtained medical rest on his being detailed in Panchayat Election duty in West Bengal in May, 1998; (4) he was found hand in glove with the illegal coal mafias during an enquiry by DIG (NEZ), Calcutta. Taking into consideration of his unsatisfactory performance and as he could not qualify himself in the basic training, his probation period was extended up to 7. 1. 1999 followed by another one year up to 7. 1. 2000. It is also alleged by the respondents that on 21. 5. 1998 about 1230 hrs, a CISF party seized a truck loaded with illegal coal and the petitioner instead of encouraging and admiring his subordinates, threatened them and narrating the same a report dated 6. 6. 98 was submitted by the Deputy Commandant In-charge, vide Annexure-R 10. From a secret enquiry conducted by the Inspector (Exe) confirmed petitioner's close link with Mafias and his attempt to facilitate theft of coal by selected groups. It is also submitted by the respondents that as per existing rules, a Screening Committee headed by the Head of Department, namely, Director General, CISF assessed the suitability of the petitioner and it was decided to extend his probation period for his unsatisfactory performance which was communicated to the petitioner by a office letter dated 20. 10. 98. Thereafter, by letter dated 5. 7. 99, the petitioner was advised to improve his performance failing which his service would be terminated any time. But, in the month of July, 1999, after availing three days casual leave from 22. 7. 99 to 24. 7. 99, when the petitioner was expected to join duty on 28. 7. 99, he did not turn up and remained absent without permission. Six call up notices were sent to the petitioner at his leave address directing him to report to the Unit forthwith, but the petitioner was reluctant to receive call up notices and when a Sub-officer was sent and service the call up notice dated 1. 11. 99, the petitioner reported to the Unit on 15. 12. 99 after 140 days. As such the act on the part of the petitioner itself showed that the petitioner was irresponsible and he did not take care to improve his performance and when even after advising for many times, the performance of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory during the probation period, his service was terminated by the competent authority vide order dated 7. 1. 2000.