During the probation period, a member of the force can be discharged if found unfit for service, as per the terms of appointment and relevant rules.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. Through the instant intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenge is made to the order dated 16.02.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge through which the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed.

2. The facts in brevity leading to the filing of the present appeal are that through appointment letter dated 09.09.2011 the respondent was provisionally selected for appointment as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short the 'CISF'). However, on 24.10.2011, while he was undergoing the basic training course, FIR No.270, dated 24.10.2011 was registered against him at Police Station Sadar Narnaul under Sections 302/120-B IPC and in pursuance thereof he was arrested on 03.12.2011.

3. On 09.12.2011, in terms of the conditions of his appointment, read with the Rules 25/26 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short 'the Rules'), the respondent was discharged from service by the competent authority. The respondent challenged the afore-referred order dated 09.12.2011 through a writ petition filed before this Court being CWP No. 17047 of 2013-Satish Kumar vs. Union of India and others which petition was disposed of on 07.08.2013 with a direction to respondent No. 4 therein to decide the representations submitted by the respondent against termination of his services within a period of two months by passing a speaking order. In terms of the order passed by this Court, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent, his representations were rejected vide order dated 21.10.2013. Such rejection was also affirmed by the Director General, CISF through his letter dated 03.12.2013.

4. The afore-referred termination order dated 09.12.2011; order dated 21.10.2013 and the letter dated 03.12.2013 were challenged by the respondent through a petition filed in this Court being CWP No.2969 of 2014-Satish Kumar vs. Union of India and others which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order impugned in the present appeal.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

6. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the respondent's plea has been accepted primarily on the ground that his services have been terminated only for the reason that a criminal case had been registered against him and that since he had been acquitted in that case, the reason for termination of his services ceased to exist. However, before arriving at such conclusion the learned Single Judge failed to notice that at the time when the services of the respondent were terminated he was on probation. Rather, he had by that time not even completed his basic training course and that his services had been done away with through an innocuous, non-stigmatic order which was in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment as also Rules 25/26 of the Rules.

7. The relevant terms and conditions of appointment of the respondent are extracted below: -

“(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) Your appointment will be subject to the conditions given in the Agreement Form which will be required to be filled at the time of the reporting at DIG/Principal, CISF, RTC, Bhilai, P.O. Utal, Distt.-Durg, Chhatisgarh, PIN Code 490001 on 25.09.2011 for joining the post and to attend basic training scheduled to commence w.e.f. 26.09.2011.

(iii) You will on probation for a period of two years.

(iv) The appointing authority may discharge you from service at any time during the period of probation, if in their opinion, your work of conduct during this period is considered unsatisfactory, or shows that you are not fit for permanent appointment.

(v) You will be considered for confirmation in service on your successful completion of probation and if you are found fit in every respect for confirmation.

(vi) to (xiv) xxx xxx xxx

(xv) The offer of appointment is purely provisional and subject to verifica