RACHPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned Central Government Counsel, who appeared on behalf of respondent/Union of India.

(2.) Learned Central Government Counsel, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that after the order, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the petitioner firstly approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and the case was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad on 10.1.2003 since it was not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 5304 of 2004, which was disposed of allowing the petitioner to make a supplementary application to the IG, CISF seeking permission to convert his revision petition into appeal under Rule 46 of CISF Rules. Thereafter, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal in accordance with law. It was not end of the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, Delhi by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No. 1556 of 2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn and finally, the present writ petition has been filed. At the very outset, it was argued that since the petitioner was on extended period of probation, there was no requirement to conduct departmental enquiry and in view of Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, the competent authority was having jurisdiction to pass an order reverting the petitioner to its original post. By way of referring to the averment made in the supplementary counter-affidavit details have been furnished that during the period of probation, the petitioner has committed misconduct on several occasions and he was imposed punishment on number of occasions. Such details have been given in paragraph-4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit. It has also been clarified that from time to time for a period of six months, probation period was extended with a view that the petitioner may mend himself, but since he was repeatedly committing misconduct and was punished repeatedly, finally a decision was taken vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby his probation period on the post of head constable was cancelled and he was reverted to the post of constable. It was submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, there is no point for entertaining file writ petition.

(3.) Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the averment made in the counter-affidavit, which has not been controverted, it is evident that from time to time the petitioner had approached different Courts and authority. Fact remains that the petitioner is resident of Uttar Pradesh and after order of punishment, which was passed by an authority of CISF Unit, Shakti Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), the petitioner approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad without availing remedy of appeal or revision. He did not get any relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. However, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a supplementary application to the IG, CISF seeking permission to convert his revision petition, which was pending before the authority, into appeal and, thereafter, the petitioner approached Delhi High Court and before Delhi High Court, the writ petition was dismissed as withdraws and now the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In view of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the petitioner was only on probation and during the said period, he was imposed several punishments, the Court is of the opinion that while passing the impugned order under Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules the authority concerned has committed no error. I do not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.