[2026:RJ-JP:2002]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5535/2015 Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi S/o Shri Ajmer Singh Tyagi, aged about 21 years, R/o P.O. Baghel, Tehsil Jaura, District Murena (M.P.), (Constable No.130116095, C.I.S.F.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Inspector General (Training Sector H.Q.) Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), National Industrial Security Academy P.O. Hakimpet, District Runga Reddy, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh).

3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), RTC, Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6102/2015 Bheemasen Singh Tomer S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Tomar, aged about 25 years, R/o Village & Post- Tareni (Gyan Singh ka Pura), Tehsil Ambah, P.S. Porsa, District Murena (M.P.), (Ex.-Constable No.130105035, C.I.S.F.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Inspector General (Training Sector H.Q.) Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), National Industrial Security Academy P.O. Hakimpet, District Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh).

3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), RTC, Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Garg with Mr. Kshitiz Singh &

Mr. Amulya Jemini on behalf of Mr. S.S. Hora Mr. Manoj Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

16/01/2026

1. Matters have come up on an application for seeking final disposal of the writ petitions.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the above application, the same is allowed.

3. As the facts, controversy and cause of action in both the writ petitions are almost similar, therefore, with the consent of parties, both the matters were heard together finally and are being decided by this common order.

4. It is stated that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process on the post of Constable/GD initiated by Central Industrial Security Forces (for short, 'CISF') and after undergoing the entire process, the petitioners were appointed vide orders dated 08.10.2013 on probation of two years. While the petitioner were in probation period, they received notices dated 01.09.2014 revealing therein that although the petitioners were prosecuted in criminal cases, yet in the attestation forms, against column No.12, where they were required to disclose as to whether they were prosecuted or not, both the petitioners mentioned 'No' and such suppression was treated seriously and, therefore, petitioners were asked to show-cause as to why departmental enquiry should not be initiated against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that after receiving such notices, they have filed reply to the notices and submitted that they have already been acquitted in the criminal cases and on account of acquittal, bonafide error in entering information with regard to prosecution was not relevant and such incorrect information was not given deliberately but was rather on account of their tender age.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that thereafter the initial notice dated 01.09.2014 was not pursued by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners received notices under Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the Rules of 2001') revealing therein that petitioners were in period of probation and the Competent Authority was of the opinion that they were not fit for permanent appointment in CISF. After completion of 30 days statutory period, services of both the petitioners were terminated vide orders dated 25.10.2014.

7. Feeling aggrieved by termination, both the petitioners submitted detailed representations mentioning therein that in fact the termination orders dated 25.10.2014 are not simpliciter in nature, albeit stated to have be