Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) . - The writ petitioner was appointed in the regular vacancy under the Central Industrial Security Force. While he was on probation, he was terminated from the service. The order of termination dated 14th January, 1998 has been appealed. The appellate authority with reason rejected the said appeal. Hence this writ petition. The relevant extract of the termination notice is quoted below : "The services of No. 962330568 Constable Md Anis Khan S/o Md. Alauddin Khan who was appointed as such on probation on 23.3.86 (FN) vide Commandant/principal, CISFRTC, Bhilai service order Part I No. 13/1996 dated 3.4.96 are terminated with immediate effect under Clause 2 (a) of Agreement Form executed by him under Rule 15 of CISF Rule 1969 read with Rule 19 of CISF Rule 1969. 2. He shall be paid one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice". From the reason appearing in the order of the appellate authority it transpires that the writ petitioner while joining the service had concealed the fact that he was implicated in a criminal case which was pending during the time he got the the employment. The said fact is however undisputed as it appears from the averment made in the writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the termination notice was based on clause 2(a) of the Agreement in the Form in Appendix "A" to the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 read with rules 15 and 19 of the said Rules. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, further submits that clause 2(a) had under-gone a judicial review by the Apex court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly reported in 1986 (3) SCC 156. Paragraph 112 of the said judgment has been relied upon by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, which is qoted below : "In the result, both these appeals fail and are dismissed but the order passed by substituting for the declaration given by it a declaration that clause (i) of Rule 9 of the "Service, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979" of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as being opposed to public policy and is also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent that it confers upon the Corporation the right to terminate the employment of a permanent employee by giving him three months' notice in writing or by paying him the dearness allowance in lieu of such notice". Relying on the said decision Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the writ petitioner enjoys the public appointment he cannot be terminated in the fashion as has been done without being proceeded with by a regular domestic proceeding giving an adequate opportunity to defend himself, Referring to rules 15 and 19 of the said Rules, 1969, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, submits that the probationary period is a part of the service canter and all appointments by direct requirement are subject to the fulfilment of two years of probationary period. Since the writ petitioner was appointed in a permanent vacancy, such appointment is permanent one and the analogy of the Apex Court decision would clearly guide the instant case. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, has also relied upon another Apex Court's decision in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere- Vs-Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431 wherein ad-hoc appointment in a regular vacancy was considered by the Apex Court as equivalant to regular appointment and termination without giving any opportunity to explain her contention was declared to be bad and illegal. In my view when a person has applied for a regular appointment he is to furnish the particulars pentaining to his bio-data factor. Concealment of the same has serious consequences. The writ petitioner duly filled up such application form in the required format by concealing the fact that he was implicated in criminal case. While the respondent authority came to know about the said fact, they served on him the order of termination. The case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere before the Apex Court, in my view, cannot support the writ petitioner. In the said case the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was time to time extended and all on sudden she was served with an order of termination without any reason. While the matter was reviewed by the court of law it has been transpired from the file that her service was un-satisfactory. Hence the Apex Court held that opportunity should have been given to explain her conduct on the question of suitability Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, citing the case submits that unsuitability in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Rules is to be defined in the light of the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431. With due respect, the fact of this case is not similar to the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere and as such I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) In the case of Brojo Nath Ganguly the Apex Court considered such identical clause in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances wherein the permanent employee of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation was being terminated by virtue of a particular clause in the like nature. Since a person having permanent employment in a public sector and Government organisation enjoins support from the Constitution and specially Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court observed that such clause was opposed to public policy. In the instant case the appointment was obtained by the writ petitioner by exercising fraud by giving deliberate mis-statement in his application. It might be true that the order of termination did not disclose any reason. The appellate authority considered all aspects and passed a reasoned order.;