The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a departmental order reverting a CISF Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector due to unsatisfactory probation performance. The Court held that no one-month notice was required under the Rules for such reversion.
The writ petition to quash the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on 23.01.2019 Orders prounced on 05.04.2019 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2993 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Ved Pal Boora
Inspector No.952070010 Central Industrial Security Force, C.I.S.F. Unit, D.A.E., Kalpakkam - 603 102. ... Petitioner Vs. 1 The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Block No.13, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003. 2 The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Western Sector - 35, Khargar, Taloga, New Mumbai - 10. 3 The Deputy Inspector General, D.A.E., Central Industrial Security Force, Zonal Head Quarters, ECIL P.O., Hyderabad 600 062. 4 The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, C.I.S.F. Unit, D.A.E., Kalpakkam - 603 102. ... Respondents Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 25.1.2011 which was affixed in the quarters of the petitioner on 3.2.2011 in his order No.E-30013/Insp.-Prob/DAE-HQ/2011/41 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For Respondents : Mr.M.Sundar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel
******
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the writ petitioner was selected as Sub Inspector on 5.1.1995 and posted for basic training at Hyderabad. After completion of training, he was promoted as Inspector and posted in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, ONGC, Mehsana, Gujarat and was transferred to 4th RB Jaipur on 11.9.2010. According to the petitioner, due to injury on spinal card at the time of rope climbing process, doctors diagnosed as spinal tuberculosis and the petitioner was advised to take treatment for one year. However, On 15.5.2009, the petitioner was trasnferred to D.A.E. Kalpakkam. During the period 21.7.2008 to 30.4.2009 at CISF, ONGC, Mehsana, Gujarat, petitioner raised voice against the Deputy Commandant Aksharma for his involvement in the Oil Pilferage form ONGC, Mehsana and their anti establishment activities. The petitioner made a complaint to I.G./W.S. and Senior Commandant, ONGC, Mehsana but the petitioner was threatened not to make such allegation against higher authorities. The petitioner was issued charge memo on 28.11.2008 alleging misbehaviour against one Mr.Suriyaprakash, Head Constable. Another charge memo also has been issued against the petitioner under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules on 5.12.2008, because of the complaint made by the petitioner, against one Mr.R.K.Trivedi.
(i) On 31.10.2008 Inspector/ Exe.Vedpal Boora made a complaint to Dy. Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC, Mehsana against one HC/GD Suryaprakash, BHM alleging misbehaviour with him by the HC/GD where he expressed lack of faith in the officers of CISF/ONGC Mehsana Unit and requested to get the enquiry conducted by any outside officer. Thus, he showed lack of faith in his officers without any valid reasons and tried to tarnish the image of the officers and obstruct the administrative process. (ii) In reply to DC office letter No.4310, dated 1.11.2008 Inspector/Exe.Vedpal Boora in his application, dated 2.11.2008 requested to shift him immediately from the duties of Coy. Commander for smooth functioning of the unit. Thus, his attitude was of shirking of responsibility and he tried to pressurize the unit administration by creating obstacles.
on 16.4.2009. When the petitioner was working at Regimental duties, he was found absent on 23.2.2009. He was issued with Advisory memo vide Dy. Commandant, CISF Unit, ONGC, Mehsana letter No.V-15099/ONGC(Meh)/Disc/09/806, dated 24.2.2009. By letter No.E-38014/04/WZ/Adm./2009/1082, dated 1.4.2009, petitioner was posted to CISF Unit, DAE Kalpakkam, he reported at CISF Unit, DAE, Kalpakkam on 15.5.2009. The Reporting Officer after assessment of the petitioner's performance having found unsatisfactory, recommended probation period may be extended for a period of six months. Further, Reviewing officer recommended that the petitioner may be reverted to the rank of Sub Inspector/Exe., because he lacks discipline, always tries to undermine the authority of seniors, is found involved in provoking juniors against seniors, his attitude is vindictive and tries to blame his seniors and colleagues for his failures. Final order has been passed by the DIG/DAE on going through the probation report, decided to extend the probation period of the petitioner for further six months with effect from 21.7.2010 in view of his unsatisfactory performance. The probation period was extended to give him an opportunity to change his behaviour and complete the probation period to the satisfaction of administration. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by letter, dated 3.9.2010. However, the petitioner refused to receive the said letter on 6.9.2010 in the presence of Reserve Inspector. Subsequently, said letter was sent through post and the same was returned with an endorsement refused on 20.9.2010. The performance assessment was done by the Supervisory Officers and the Reporting officer in his report mentioned that the petitioner has not meet the requirement of the job on all the counts. The Reporting officer also mentioned that the petitioner instigates others for anti establishment activities whenever his fault is pointed out and blames superiors, never accepts his fault and has no respect for seniors and department.
respondent, there is no violation of procedure as contemplated under the Rules wherein no notice was required to revert the individual to the original post as per Rule 25(2) of the CISF Rules. Therefore, the order of the respondent is perfectly valid and hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
charges against the petitioner:
Charge I :
Force No.952070010 InspectorExe Ved. Pal Boora of CISF, Unit, ONGC Mehsana, dated 12.11.2008 was detailed for the "C" shift near the control room. During the detailment the said Insepector insulted No.821150087 Head Constable R.K.Trivedi in front of other personnel. Due to that he became tension. This act shows the gross indiscipline. Hence, the charge. Charge II :
Force No.952070010 InspectorExe Ved. Pal Boora of CISF, Unit, ONGC Mehsana have submitted false complaint report on 13.11.2008 stating that No.821150087 Head Constable RK Trivedi and No.904480261 and doing act in a conspiracy which is baseless and fabricated. This is an act of indiscipline and negligence. Hence, the charge.
"25. Probation-(1)...... (2) If during the period of probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may discharge him or terminated the services from
the Force after issue of notice of one month or after giving one month's pay in lieu of such notice, or revert him to the rank from which he was promoted or repatriate to his parent department, as the case may be."
26.11.2014], wherein it is held as follows: "Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed as a constable under the respondentsC.I.S.F. When he was sent for training, he could not pass the Basic Training within the stipulated period, as such his training period was extended for a period of two months and thereafter he qualified for the Basic Training. In the appointment letter, there was specific condition that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years and it is informed by the competent authority that if the service of the petitioner is not satisfactory, his service will be terminated. The Reviewing Officer concurred with the finding of the Reporting Officer that the performance of the petitioner was found not satisfactory during the probationary period, as such one extension was given to him during short span of his service. Altogether five punishments, minor in nature, had been imposed on the petitioner. Since the petitioner had been appointed as a member of a disciplined force, he supposed to perform his duty with utmost sincerity and satisfaction to the higher authority. If any employee will not perform his duty upto mark and to the satisfaction of the higher authority during the probationary period, it is for the higher authority to take a decision to retain the petitioner in service by extending the period of probation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. However, the petitioner was given opportunity to improve himself, but even thereafter he had not improved himself. The provision has been made under Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001 for terminating the service of such employee, which is quoted herein below: "If during the period of probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that a member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment, the appointing authority may discharge him or terminate the services from the Force after issue of notice of one month or after giving one month's pay in lieu of such notice, or revert him to the rank from which he was promoted or repatriate to his parent department, as the case may be." The competent authority has been vested with the power to take appropriate decision for
discharging a probationer, if he is of the opinion that the employee is not fit for the service. The word 'fit' has been referred to in Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001, which has broad meaning. Fitness includes conduct, character and satisfactory service. Admittedly, the petitioner had been awarded five punishments, which itself indicate that the service of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory by the competent authority, as such one opportunity was provided to the petitioner to improve himself by giving one extension during the probationary period, but even thereafter, there was no improvement in the performance of the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.2.2007 and the impugned notice was issued to him on 19.2.2007 by the competent authority under the provision prescribed in Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001. So far as the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the impugned order has been passed on certain allegation/misconduct, the petitioner was entitled to be provided an opportunity of hearing under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, since there is specific Rule/statute to pass an appropriate order with respect to a probationer, Article 311(2) will not come into play. When the competent authority is of the opinion that the conduct / service of an employee is found to be not satisfactory, can pass appropriate orders. The employee cannot challenge the same, merely on the ground, not provided adequate opportunity. Moreover, since the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years and there are serious allegations of irregularities against him, as has been referred to by the Inspector General, C.I.S.F in his order, the respondents authorities have taken a decision in exercise of power conferred under Rule 25(2) of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001 by which the competent authority has been vested with power to discharge a probationer from the service on the ground of dissatisfactory service.
the same principle on the present case, petitioner's service during the probation period was not satisfactory. During his tenure, an adverse report submitted against the petitioner. Based of the assessment of the petitioner's performance, petitioner was reverted to lower post.
"6. It is true that termination of
services results in civil consequences and that audi alteram partem rule has to be followed. But the theory of principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket and it is not an absolute rule that in each and every adverse order, there should be a strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. One such exception to audi alteram partem rule is absence of any legal right to defend the impugned action and in fact, such cases are covered by the 'useless formality theory' propounded by the Supreme Court in ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY v. MANSOOR ALI KHAN (AIR 2000 SC 2783). Even for availment of the alternative remedy, a legal right should subsist and there may be some cases like the instant one where there is no right accrued even at the time of entry into service and when the top administrative authority, i.e. the Government, has already taken a stand, it serves no purpose to drive a party to avail of the alternative remedy as there is absolutely no discretion for the subordinate officers of the Government to take any decision contra to the view taken by the Government. Further, when interpretation of the provisions of the Statute, Rules framed thereunder and the Governmental Orders are involved, it is for the High Court to embark upon enquiry to adjudicate the matter and cannot be left to the subordinate officers of the Government, who are named as the statutory authorities. Added to that, having regard
to the magnitude of the problems and the bulk of cases, it serves no purpose in driving the parties to approach the statutory authorities as it is bound to bounce back again to this Court resulting in multiplicity of proceedings creating a fluid situation without concretisation of the legal principles. Having regard to these factors, we are of the considered view that the matter should be set at rest by laying down the definite and clear-cut legal principles so that the statutory authorities can be left only with the task of fact finding and then give a quietus to the situation. We now proceed to adjudicate.''
In fine, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan
4 The Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force,
C.I.S.F. Unit, D.A.E., Kalpakkam - 603 102.
+1cc to Mr.A.S.Mujibur Raghman, Advocate,SR.No.33544
+1cc to Mr.M.Sundar,CGSC, Sr.No.33024
Pre-Delivery order in
W.P.No.2993 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011
RSV(CO)
MP(28/05/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order reverting the petitioner to a lower post without issuing a one-month notice under Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules violates procedural rules?
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the reversion of the probationer?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.S. Sankaranarayanan vs. Inspector General of Police, RailwaysDistinguished¶39
K.S.SANKARANARAYANAN VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAYS, CHENNAI - 8 (W.P.No.39395 of 2005 dated 1.4.2010)
V. Krishnaveeni vs. The Principal District and Sessions JudgeDistinguished¶40
V.KRISHNAVENI VS. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMBINED DISTRICT COURTS CAMPUS, MADURAI 625 020 (W.P.No.16985 of 2017, dated 21.3.2018)
Neraj Goliyan vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶41
NEERAJ GOLIYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [W.P.No.1020 of 2011, dated 26.11.2014]
Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali KhanDistinguished¶49
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY vs. MANSOOR ALI KHAN (AIR 2000 SC 2783) · Who else cites this
L. Justine and Another vs. The Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesApplied¶49
L.JUSTINE AND ANOTHER VS. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, CHENNAI-10 AND TWO OTHERS [2002(4) CTC 385]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ved Pal Boora
The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Deputy Inspector General, D.A.E., Central Industrial Security Force
The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force
D. Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
