1. Petitioner, who was recruited as Constable in the respondent Force, was terminated from the service vide order dated 18.02.2011 issued by the Comman#31;dant, CISF Unit, MbPT Mumbai. The said order is taken note of:

"OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

(MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)

Mumbai Port Trust

Huges Dry Dock Building

Indira Dock, Bllard Estate

Mumbai-400001

No:-5014/CISF/MbPT(M)/Disc/SK./2011-529 Dated: 18 FEB. 2011

ORDER

In pursuance of the Proviso of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001,1 AJIT SINGH, Commandant, CISF Unit, MbPT Mumbai hereby terminate forthwith the services of No. 092301092 Constable Suresh Kumar of CISF Unit, MbPT Mumbai (under probation) and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice fall short of one month.

COMMANDANT CISF UNIT MbPT MUMBAI"

2. Being aggrieved of the said order, petitioner challenged the same in an appeal before the Inspector General/WS. The said appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 05.05.2011 and maintained the termination order passed by the Commandant. At paragraph 3, of the writ petition, petitioner has pleaded that order was served on him at Kanachak, Jammu.

3. On notice, respondents have filed reply affidavit/objections.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that service of the petitioner was terminated because of the fact that he suppressed the information that an FIR was registered against him. Learned counsel submitted that this court is lacking territorial jurisdiction to hear this petition.

5. In order to appreciate the contention raised at the bar, it is deemed appro#31;priate to take note of rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short Rules of 2001):

"25. Probation. —

(1) Every member of the Force except those appointed on deputation/ab#31;sorption, shall be on probation for the period specified in relevant column of the Recruitment Rules:

Provided that in the absence of a specific order of confirmation or a declaration of satisfactory completion of probation, a member of the Force shall be deemed to be on probation:

Provided further that no member of the Force shall ordinarily be kept on probation for more than twice the period prescribed in respective Recruit#31;ment Rules.

(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.

(3) On successful completion of probation by a member of the Force, the appointing authority shall pass an order confirming the member of the Force in the grade in which he joined the Force."

6. After the recruitment of the petitioner, it transpired that case FIR 25/2009 under Sections 341,323 RFC, Arms Act 4/25 was registered against him with the Police Station, Kanachak. Challan was produced before the court of competent jurisdiction. Parties entered into compromise and petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the court vide order dated 01.07.2009. It is also not in dispute that petitioner had filled in questionnaire and at that point of time, no FIR was registered against him and on 06.07.2009 when attestation form was filled in by the petitioner, he was already acquitted of the charges by the court of competent jurisdiction.

7. Objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that this court is lacking jurisdiction, cannot be accepted, for the reason that the appellate authority's order in which original order of termination h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document