IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21069 OF 2011 Date:27.07. 2011 Between:- K.Choudary .. Petitioner And The Govt. of India, rep.by its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the termination order, dated 14.07.2011, passed by respondent No.4, declaring him as unfit for permanent post without giving his benefits of probation for more than twice the period prescribed in respective recruitment rules as contemplated in Sub para (1) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, ‘the Rules’) as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as CT/GD in Central Industrial Security Force on 14.11.2009 and has been working as such. He is on probation for a period of two years from the date of his appointment. While so, respondent No.4 terminated him from service vide the impugned order, without giving any opportunity or notice declaring him as unfit for permanent post. No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard. 4. On the ground that the petitioner is not fit for permanent appointment, respondent No.4 terminated the services of the petitioner under Rule 25(2) of the Rules and issued one month’s pay and allowances in lieu of termination notice. Rule 25 (2) of the Rules reads as under: “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 terminate 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.” Therefore, the appointing authority has rightly exercised this rule and terminated the services of the petitioner as not fit for permanent appointment. Therefore, it is not a fit case to interfere with the same. Rule 26(1) reads as under: “Where the appointing authority has terminated the services of probationer, the Inspector-General may on his own motion or otherwise, reopen the case and after making such enquiry as he thinks fit may, (i) confirm the action taken by the appointing authority; (ii) withdraw the notice; (iii) reinstate the probationer in service; or (iv) make such other order in the case as he may consider proper”. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he can make a representation to the Inspector General, as per Rule 26(1) of the Rules and thereupon, respondent No.3 has to take appropriate decision on the said representation. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21069 OF 2011 Date:27.07.2011 AMD