The legality of termination of a probationer in the context of non-disclosure of a pending criminal case and the permissibility of termination simpliciter without attaching stigma.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Keausub Unit Bhako Koli, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, whereby, in terms of the provisions as contained in Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001(hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the petitioner’s services have been terminated during the period of his probation, as he was not found fit for his permanent appointment in Central Industrial Security Force.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Cook in Central Industrial Security Force with effect from 12.6.2008 and he was put under probation for two years. Against the said order dated 16.7.2009 the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Region, Patna who, vide his order dated 23.11.2009 has dismissed it.

4. From the facts pleaded and the documents annexed with the present application, it appears that the reason behind passing of the impugned order is non-disclosure by the petitioner at the time of his enlistment in the Force, about the pendency of a criminal case against him.

5. This is also not in dispute that at the time of submission of joining in the Force a criminal case was pending against him, being Reg No. 598 under Sections 323,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Chalisgaon Police Station. In view of the fact that he had suppressed this factual information against the appropriate column of the attestation form in contravention of the instructions given in the attestation form, the impugned order of termination from service came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that at the time of the occurrence leading to institution of the criminal case, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner had no knowledge about the rules and regulations of the Central Industrial Security Force and out of sheer mistake he mentioned in the attestation form that no case was pending. It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application that he was not aware of the fact that any case was lodged against him. It has further been asserted that the case was instituted due to family dispute and the matter was subsequently compromised between the parties and the case has been finally dropped, with the consent of the parties, the offences being compoundable. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was implicated in the said criminal case out of a petty family dispute for minor offences, which are apparently compoundable and have finally been dropped. He has placed reliance upon an order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 12642 of 2005 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & ors) dated 01.10.2007 wherein this Court, in similar situation had directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh. He has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP© No. 4571 of 2010 (Patel Kalpesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors) to submit that the authorities should have taken a lenient view of the matter, keeping in mind that the offences were petty in nature.

7. A probationer does not have right to hold a post. The competent authority is well within its jurisdiction to terminate service of a probationer in Central Industrial Security Force, in exercise of power under Rule 25 (2) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, if in its opinion such employee is not found suitable for permanent appointment. Before taking such decision or passing of such order no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to be given. On perusal, the impugned order cannot be said to be punitive and as it does not attach any stigma to the petitioner.

8. Fro