Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHAS YADAV (064380272

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Subhas Yadav (064380272-Ut/Ct) v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 21528 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8720 (8 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.  21528  of   2007

Subhas Yadav  ...................................................    Petitioner


Union of India & others ............................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.1.2007  by which the petitioner has been struck off from the strength  pay roll of CISF Unit  in exercise of power under rules 25 and 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001.  

The petitioner was appointed   with effect from 2.9.2006 as constable in Central Industrial Security Force on probation for a period of two years.  The petitioner was sent for basic training which commenced on 4.9.2006.  Petitioner did not attend the training  with effect from 4.9.2006 due to poor health. He was sent for medical examination to Cuttak on 3.10,.2006 from where without any information or permission to the competent authority he came back to his home. A call letter dated 5.10.2006 , 18.10.2006 and 30.10.2006 was issued to the petitioner consequently he reported on 8.11.2006.  Exercising the power under rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 a month notice was issued on 2.12.2006 for terminating the services of the petitioner  and after thirty days  termination order dated 2.1.2007 has been issued which has been challenged in this writ petition.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled for an opportunity before termination of his service.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner's appointment  with effect from 2.9.2006 was on probation.  Rule 25 (2) empowers the competent authority to discharge from post if the appointing authority is of the opinion that the  member of the Force  is not fit for permanent appointment after issue of notice of one month. Rule 25 of the said Rules is quoted below:-

"25. Probation,_ (1) Every member of the Force except those appointed on deputation/absorption, 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 Recruitment 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 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. "

  The petitioner having been terminated  during probation no opportunity was necessary.  Rule 25 empowers the appointing authority to discharge a member of the Force after forming an opinion  that the member of the Force is not fit for permanent appointment. The order impugned has not been passed as a measure of punishment which may require opportunity to the petitioner.

No error could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order warranting interference  by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.  

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.  




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.