PRANAB HALDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.6196 dtd. 17/6/2015 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dtd. 1/9/2010 (Annexure-2) by which the petitioner has been terminated from services, passed by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of order dtd. 1/9/2010 (Annexure-2), by which the petitioner has been terminated from services to the post of Constable, passed by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with consequential monetary benefits with panel rate of interest. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to prohibit the respondents from filling up the post which become vacant due to alleged termination of services of the petitioner and restraining the respondents authorities from filling up the post of Constable (Security) made vacant due to illegal termination of service of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as Constable in CISF on 6/9/2008 vide RTC Arakkonam Service order Part-I No.49/2008 dtd. 30/10/2008 and by the same order, he was asked to report for duties along with duly filled-up attestation form and requisite certificates. As per the terms and conditions of service, he was placed under probation for a period of two years with clear direction that in the event of his being found unsuitable for retention in the force, at any time either during the period of his initial training or during the period of his probation, his services would be terminated by the Appointing Authority in accordance with the provision of Rule 25 and 26 of CISF Rules, 2001. Accordingly, petitioner undergone the Basic Training of Constable at RTC Arakkonam w.e.f. 8/9/2008 to 14/3/2009 and after completion of the same, he was posted as Security (Force) Member at Panchayat Dam of DVC Unit of CISF. The petitioner was working to utter satisfaction of the respondents, but surprisingly, vide impugned order dtd. 1/9/2010, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad on the allegation that he had not furnished the information regarding involvement in criminal case as well as acquittal in the same in Column No.12 of Attestation Form at the time of his appointment, without giving one month prior notice with salary and allowances of that month, with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached earlier before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2937 of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 27/11/2014. It is further the case of the petitioner that he preferred an Appeal under Sec. 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001 before the Competent Authority, which was also rejected vide impugned order dtd. 12/6/2015, which is under challenge.

(3.) Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and non-speaking. She further submits that at the time of appointment, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner and even when the application form was filled up, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner as he was acquitted/discharged by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 6/9/2006 and as such, petitioner while filling up the verification roll/ application form had given answer ..No.. in reply to questions relating to arrest, prosecution detention, correction, punishment of fine etc. She further submits that there is no concealment of fact.