Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging his discharge from service during probation. He was appointed on 19.04.2003 and placed on probation till 18.04.2005, which was repeatedly extended. By order dated 15.03.2007, the fourth respondent terminated his services under Rule 25(2) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the second respondent on 18.06.2008, and a subsequent mercy petition also failed. The petitioner contended that the termination, though termed a simpliciter discharge, was actually stigmatic because it was based on alleged absence from duty, thus necessitating an enquiry. He further argued that on completion of the original probation period without express extension, he should be deemed confirmed, and any discharge required an enquiry. He highlighted that the same authority issued a call notice and terminated him on the same day, showing non-application of mind and violation of natural justice. Reliance was placed on Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P., and State Bank of India v. Palak Modi. The respondents countered that the petitioner was a habitual absentee with frequent sickness, and his performance remained unsatisfactory despite multiple probation extensions. The discharge under Rule 25(2) was simpliciter, without any stigma, and did not require an enquiry. The appellate authority confirmed the discharge after considering the material. The court heard arguments and examined Rule 25 and 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which deal with probation and termination. However, the provided judgment text does not include the final decision or analysis of the court on the issues framed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination is contrary to CISF Rules and is a discharge with stigma; Whether an enquiry ought to have been held before discharge; Whether respondents were empowered to terminate without enquiry as the petitioner was on probation
Law Points
- Discharge during probation under CISF Rules must not be stigmatic
- if stigma enquiry required
- Probationer's confirmation if period extended beyond twice the prescribed period
- Authority must form opinion that probationer is not fit for permanent appointment
- Discharge must be simpliciter not punitive
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (12) 31
WRIT PETITION No.12480/2010 (S-DIS)
M.R. Rajagopal for petitioner, Mruthyunjaya Tata Bangi for respondents
Union of India, Inspector General CISF, Director General CISF, Senior Commandant CISF
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination of the petitioner from the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the termination order dated 15.03.2007, the appellate order dated 18.06.2008, and the communication dated 09.07.2008; reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that his discharge from service during probation was stigmatic and without holding an enquiry, in violation of Article 21 and CISF Rules.
Previous Decisions
The fourth respondent terminated the petitioner on 15.03.2007; the second respondent rejected the review/representation on 18.06.2008; the mercy petition to the third respondent was not considered favourably.
Issues
Whether the termination order dated 15.03.2007 is contrary to CISF Rules and is a discharge with stigma rather than a simpliciter discharge?
Whether the respondent authorities ought to have held an enquiry before discharging the petitioner from services?
Whether the respondents were empowered to terminate the petitioner without holding an enquiry on the ground that he was on probation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that termination was stigmatic due to absence, requiring enquiry. Since probation not expressly extended after two years, petitioner deemed confirmed, thus enquiry needed. Rule 25(2) requires formation of opinion by appointing authority, which was not done; call notice and termination on same day shows non-application of mind. Violation of natural justice and Article 21.
Respondents argued that petitioner was a habitual absentee with frequent sickness; performance unsatisfactory despite probation extensions. Discharge under Rule 25(2) is simpliciter without stigma, and no enquiry is required under Rules for discharge during probation. Appellate authority affirmed the order.
Judgment Excerpts
Every member of the Force except those appointed on deputation/absorption, shall be on probation for the period specified in relevant column of the Recruitment Rules: Provided that in the absence of a specific order of confirmation or a declaration of satisfactory completion of probation, a member of the Force shall be deemed to be on probation: Provided further that no member of the Force shall ordinarily be kept on probation for more than twice the period prescribed in respective Recruitment Rules.
If during the period of probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may discharge him or terminated the services from the Force after issue of notice of one month or after giving one month’s pay in lieu of such notice, or revert him to the rank from which he was promoted or repatriate to his parent department, as the case may be.
Whether the termination order dated 15.03.2007 Annexure-F as confirmed by Reviewing authority by order dated 18.06.2008 Annexure-L-1 is contrary to CISF Rules and it is not a ‘discharge simplicitor’ but a discharge with ‘stigma’?
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as Constable on 19.04.2003; probation from 19.04.2003 to 18.04.2005, extended to 18.10.2005, then to 17.04.2006, then to 17.10.2006; termination on 15.03.2007 by fourth respondent; review petition filed, rejected by second respondent on 18.06.2008; mercy petition to third respondent and MP representation both unsuccessful; present writ petition filed on 15.04.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001: Rule 25, Rule 26
- Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 226, Article 227
