- (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2007, passed by the respondent No. 5, and also by the order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the respondent No. 4, by which he has been terminated from' service, has approached this Court. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed on the post of constable in the Central Industrial Security Force on 24.4.2003 initially on probation for a period of two years, subject to the condition that if his service will be found to be satisfactory during the said period, his probationary period will be extended. However, the period of probation of the petitioner was extended up to 2.3.2007 by giving one extension. It has been submitted that by virtue of a show cause notice, the petitioner's service was terminated vide order dated 19.2.2007 on the ground that during the period of probation, his service was not found to be satisfactory. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had preferred appeal before the appellate authority, which was also rejected vide order dated 28.9.2007. It was submitted that although the order dated 19.2.2007 is not stigmatic, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.2.2007 making certain allegations of misconduct, dereliction of duty and deliberate violation of lawful order and instruction against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner's service was terminated on the ground of misconduct. Before passing the impugned order dated 19.2.2007, a regular departmental proceeding, as contemplated under Article 311(2) of Constitution of India, was to be initiated against the petitioner, but the order of termination was passed without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. It has been further submitted that even the appellate authority had not considered this aspect of the matter and in very perfunctory manner has passed the impugned order dated 28.9.2007 upholding the decision of the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001 speaks about termination of a probationer without any misconduct, but from perusal of the show cause notice dated 2.2.2007, it appears that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner, hence Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It has been further submitted that although earlier instance has been quoted in the appellate order, the petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground of overstay of 86 days and for that if he could have been provided an opportunity of hearing, he might have brought to the notice of the authority concerned that due to his illness he had overstayed for 86 days.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after completion of Basic Training, the petitioner reported to CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad and was performing his duties in CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. He had been assigned duties accordingly, but his performance was found unsatisfactory. He neglected the duties frequently, overstayed on leave, absented without leave from duty. His probation period was found unsatisfactory and accordingly the probation period was extended from 1.6.2005 to 2.3.2007. In spite of extension of probation period, he failed to improve his performance and was awarded with 5 punishments during short span of the service for different misconduct. The details of punishment awarded to him are as under:-- "(a) The petitioner was awarded the punishment of seven days pay fine vide order No. (3180) dated 21/22.11.2004 for 19 days OSL from 23.8.2004 to 10.9.2004. (b) The petitioner was awarded the punishment of seven days pay fine vide order No. (2252) dated 5.12.2005 for OSL from 12.9.2005 to 19.9.2005 for 8 days unauthorizedly and again he absented without leave (AWL) himself from 20.9.2005 to 25.9.2005 for six days. (c) The petitioner was awarded the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order No. (2305) dated 13.5.2005 for AWL from 10.11.2005 to 22.11.2005 unauthorizedly. (d) The petitioner was awarded the punishment of seven days pay fine vide order No. (1524) dated 27.6.2006 for AWL from 30.4.2006 to 5.5.2006 unauthorizedly. (e) The petitioner was awarded the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect vide order No. (301) dated 19.2.2007 for AWL from 24.9.2006 to 18.12.2006 for 86 days unauthorizedly."
(3.) It has been further submitted on behalf of the respondents that Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001 specifically provides that the appointing authority has power to terminate the service of a probationer, if in his opinion, the service of the probationer is not found to be fit, as such there is no illegality in the impugned orders. Moreover, an employee who had not improved himself even after giving one extension during the period of probation, he cannot be retained in service that too under the service of a disciplined force.;