simply mentioned about the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 13.03.2007 and out of two charges, one was found proved in the departmental enquiry and the matter was referred to UPSC for their advice on the quantum of punishment. It is not in dispute that during his period of probation, the petitioner was also charge sheeted. In the aforesaid back ground, there is mere mention about the departmental enquiry, charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 13.03.2007 in the appellate order, and this court finds that the aforesaid departmental enquiry is not the basis of rejecting the appeal. In fact, the appellate authority has clearly recorded that on completion of two years’ probation period on 05.05.2007, the case of the petitioner was considered on four occasions in the screening committee meeting held on 6.8.2007, 11.12.2007, 22.08.2008 and 26.05.2009 at CISF Headquarter and his probation period was extended six months on each occasion and while extending the period of probation, the petitioner was advised to improve his performance during the extended period. It has also been recorded that the service of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and he was reverted, as the screening committee had taken a decision not to confirm the petitioner and revert him. In aforesaid view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the appellate Authority has not taken any ground which was not part and parcel of the order of reversal and mention of the department proceedings in the appellate order was occasioned due to the specific plea taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority that there was nothing adverse against him during the probation period . Accordingly, issue number (i) is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.
