AMIT KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HAKIMPET, HYDERABAD, REP BY INSPECTOR GENERAL (TRAINING SECTOR) & ANOTHER
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-111
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 26,2019

AMIT KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, Hakimpet, Hyderabad, Rep By Inspector General (Training Sector) And Another Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAM NARAYAN DAS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A. Rajasheker Reddy, J. - (1.)These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 10-04-2018 passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos.12918 & 12939 of 2010 respectively whereby and whereunder the relief sought by the writ petitioners-appellants herein to set aside the order of termination passed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority was upheld.
(2.)The appellants were provisionally selected and appointed as Sub-Inspectors (Executive) in Central Industrial Security Force, (CISF) and were deployed to the 2nd respondent- Academy to undergo training. The charge against them seems to be that they while undergoing training in the Academy during their probation, found that their performance was not upto the mark and also indulged in arguing with the instructors and been aggressive with them. Advises to improve their performance and mend ways yielded no results, the services of the appellants were terminated by following Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. Aggrieved by the said order of the disciplinary authority, the matter was unsuccessful carried in appeal before appellate authority. Writ petitions filed against the affirming order passed by the appellate authority were dismissed by order impugned in these appeals.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that no time was given to the appellants to improve their deficient performance and the decision to terminate their services is not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing and the decision which had the deleterious affect is not only punitive but also stigmatic and all these aspects were not considered in the proper perspective by the learned single Judge.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.