Rajendra Prasad Dhaka CISF Fact Udyogamandal v. Union of India and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 16TH MAGHA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 3943 of 2018** **----------------------** **PETITIONER :** **----------** **RAJENDRA PRASAD DHAKA CISF FACT UDYOGAMANDAL, S/O. MANGAL CHAND DHAKA, AGED 27 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CISF UNIT, FACT UDYOGAMANDAL, POST OFFICE- ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683501.** **BY ADV.SRI.T.SANJAY** **RESPONDENTS :** **----------** ## **1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL** **CISF HEADQUARTERS, 13, CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** ## **2. THE CHAIRMAN,** **18TH STANDING SCREENING COMMITTEE, CISF HQRS., 13 CGOS COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.** ## **3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (SOUTH SECTOR),** **CISF (SOUTH SECTOR), HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI-600009.** ## **4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/SZ,** **2ND FLOOR, D BLOCK, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600090.** ## **5. THE COMMANDANT,CISF UNIT,** **FACT UDYOGAMANDAL, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683501.** ## **6. UNION OF INDIA,** **REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.** **R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG OF INDIA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 3943 of 2018 (P) --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 30.05.2017. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.01.2013 OF THE FIRST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SAMBARLAKE, JAIPUR. EXHIBIT P2(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2013 OF THE FIRST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SAMBARLAKE, JAIPUR. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE FORM DATED 05.12.2015. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 28.06.2017 TO EXT P1. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2017. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WRIT PETITION 22245 OF 2017 DATED 6.7.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01.01.2017 TO 31.12.2017. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** **------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 -------------------------------------** Dated this the 5[th] day of February, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner who has been working as a Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as 'CISF') has again approached this Court challenging the orders Ext P5 and P8 terminating his services. 2. Petitioner joined duty at the CISF Unit, FACT Udyogamandal on 08.06.2016, on completion of training. While working so, with gradings of 'very good' in the appraisal reports, he received Ext P1 show cause notice dated 30.05.2017, proposing termination of his services alleging that he did not disclose his involvement in a criminal case at the time of his recruitment, in the questionnaire along with the recruitment application form dated 15.7.2014 and the questionnaire at the medical examination held on 23.4.2015 and that he mentioned “no” 2 W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 against “whether any FIR was made in the past” in column No.4 of questionnaire form, which amounted to suppression of facts and violation of declaration given by him in the application submitted for enrollment in CISF on 15.7.2014. Apart from that it was also alleged that at the time of joining CISF, RTC Bhilai, he put his signature in the form of agreement dated 24.2.2016 where it is specifically stated that “your services are liable to be terminated by competent authority for suppression of any factual information at the time of enrollment”. It is further stated that Standing Screening Committee constituted by the competent authority for examining the cases in respect of candidates having involvement in the criminal case in the past examined his case and arrived at the conclusion that he is unsuitable for appointment in CISF on account of his involvement in a serious offence from which he was acquitted since the prosecution did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It was stated that the decision of the committee is approved by the DG/CISF and communicated on 19.5.2017. 3. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner 3 W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 submitted Ext.P4 reply pointing out that he is a member of a downtrodden family from Hindi belt, in poor financial circumstances and that in the absence of anybody to counsel him at the relevant time and due to his inadvertence and inability to comprehend the significance the question, he happened to answer the questions referred, in the negative. He stated that he was only 21 years old at that time and that he happened to make the entries at the time of medical examination, on advice from certain officials since he was already acquitted by the Court. According to him, a false case was foisted against him. Producing Ext.P3 questionnaire submitted at the time of joining, he stated that he furnished correct answers in it and stated that in the certificate of character and antecedents all the details regarding the his involvement in the crime as well as his acquittal by the court were furnished. Stating that he came to know about the mistakes only from the show cause notice, he requested to drop the proceedings, pointing out that any drastic action, on account of the inadvertent mistakes, would deprive the livelihood of petitioner and the members W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 4 of his family. But without considering any of his contentions in Ext P4 reply, his services were terminated as per Ext P5 order dated 4.7.2017, under sub rule (2) of Rule 25 and sub rule (4) of Rule 26 of CISF Rules, 2001. 4. Challenging Ext.P5 order, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.22245/2017, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the respondents to re-consider his explanation Ext P4 in the light of the dictum laid down in Paragraph 30 onwards of the judgment in _**Avatar Singh v. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471,**_ keeping in abeyance the order of termination. 5. Ext.P8 order is issued thereafter in the very same manner as in Ext P5 order stating that the Special Standing Screening Committee constituted by the Competent Authority for re-examining the case of the petitioner assembled at CISF (TS) Head Quarters, Hyderabad on 05.09.2017 and arrived at the decision “UNSUITABLE for appointment in CISF” and that the said decision was conveyed to the Director General who approved it as per order dated 01.02.2018. The Writ Petition is filed at this stage pointing out that the Ext P8 order is not one passed W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 5 in tune with the direction in the judgment. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 7. A reading of Ext.P8 would show that the 1[st] respondent has not issued any order as directed in Ext.P6 judgment. While disposing of the Writ Petition No.22245/2017, this Court had directed the Director General, the 1[st] respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in _**Avatar Singh's**_ case (supra). But Ext P8 does not indicate any such consideration or even a consideration by the first respondent. The direction in the judgment was to first respondent. By issuing cryptic orders like Ext P8, contrary to the specific direction to first respondent in Ext P6 judgment to reconsider in accordance with the dictum laid down in Avatar Singh's case, petitioner has been compelled to approach this court again. 8. Petitioner has produced Ext.P7 annual performance assessment report for the period from W.P.(C).No.3943 of 2018 6 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, in which the Assistant Commandant has reported that he is a 'very good' Constable driver. Petitioner submits that a similar report was furnished for the year 2016 also. In the above circumstances, I set aside the orders of Exts.P5 and P8. It is made clear that it would be open to the 1[st] respondent to pass orders strictly in tune with the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment, taking into account the appraisal reports also of the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** ww