- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2014 pertaining to termination from services and for direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of constable with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as emanated from the averments of the writ application, in short is that, in pursuance to a selection, the petitioner got offer of appointment as constable on 10.01.2013 and in pursuance to said appointment order the petitioner joined on 05.02.2013, thereafter he was sent for training and completed his probation period successfully. Subsequently, when the petitioner was performing his duties under respondent no.3, a letter dated 29.11.2013 was issued by the respondent no.3, asking for some documents. Pursuant to the aforesaid query, the petitioner submitted the entire documents including his acquittal by the Competent Court of law vide judgment dated 21.12.2010 but to the utter surprise and consternation, the respondent no.3 without issuing any show cause notice or conducting any preliminary inquiry or regular inquiry suddenly on 07.05.2014 passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner, vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per-Contra the respondents have filed counter-affidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years but in the event of his being found unsuitable for retention in the Force at any time either during the period of his initial training or the period of his probation, his services was liable to be terminated in accordance with provision of Rule 25 (2) of CISF Rules 2001 (Now amended Rules-2003). It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges by Learned Court, ACJM, Gorakhpur owing to benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 21.12.2010 and the Standing Screening Committee found the petitioner not suitable for appointment in CISF which was circulated vide order dated 11.04.2014. As per the decision of the Standing Screening Committee, the petitioner was terminated by the competent authority in terms of Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 (amended Rules 2003) vide order dated 07.05.2014. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner was examined in depth as per the guidelines in the light of Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 01.02.2012, he was found not suitable for further retention in the force. It has further been submitted that as per Rule-16 of CISF Rules-2001 (Now amended Rules-2003) Commandant is the appointing authority of Constable. Since, the petitioner was serving in CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad, the Commandant, CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad was the appointing authority of the petitioner and was competent enough to terminate the services of the petitioner under Rule-25 (2) of CISF Rules-2001(Now amended Rules-2003) and the action of the respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner is in accordance with Rule 311(2) of the Constitution of India.;