ROHITASH CHOUDHARY CISF NO.103211093, S/O SRI BANSHI DHAR CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by Commandant, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), (Ministry of Home Affairs), CISF Unit-Bhakokoli, BCCL Dhanbad (Respondent No.4) pertaining to termination from the services of CISF and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) (Respondent No.3) pertaining to rejection of appeal thereby confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that in pursuance to appointment letter on the post of Constable issued by the respondent no.2 dated 16.02.2010, the petitioner joined the service of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 06.03.2010 on the post of Constable. Thereafter, the medical examination was conducted. The petitioner submitted his character and antecedent certificate dated 15.02.2010 issued by the SHO, Police Station Incharge, Manoharpur Police Station, Jaipur before joining in service in CISF as evident from Annexure-1 and 1/A of the writ application. After successful completion of the training, the petitioner was posted as Constable in CISF Unit of BCCL, Dhanbad. While continuing as such, without any rhyme and reason, the petitioner was terminated from services vide order dated 25.04.2011 issued by Commandant, Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF), BCCL (Respondent No.4) vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of termination dated 25.04.2011 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3. The appellate authority vide order dated 29.06.2011 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 25.04.2011 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 29.06.2011, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for mitigating his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent no. 4 failed to disclose the grounds on which the impugned order of termination against the petitioner has been passed. The impugned order/termination purportedly under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rule 2001 (Amended Rule 2003) is non-speaking order and cryptic and therefore, the same is assailable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-2 has been passed by the Commandant, Dhanbad (Respondent No.4) but actually the petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.2. Therefore, under Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rule 2001 (Amended Rule 2003) has not been complied with therefore, the impugned order cannot be legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is a major one and the same has been imposed without holding full dressed inquiry without giving opportunity of being heard. Therefore, Art. 311 of the Constitution of the India has been given a complete go back by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred supplementary affidavit dated 08.10.2015 whereby drawn the attention of the Court, the petitioner along with others have been acquitted vide order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the learned trial court, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meantime, the petitioner become over age and there is no chance of his join to any other service and the case of the petitioner institutes on the sympathetically grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2011 (2) JCR 186 (SC), Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar .