IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16803 of 2010 BALBIR KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, SON OF SHRI RISHIDEO PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. SHANKERPUR, P.S. MUFASSIL, DISTRICT MUNGER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 4. THE COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, UNIT HEP URI, JAMMU AND KASHMIR. 5. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. For the petitioner : M/s. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv., Navjot Yeshu, Advocate. For the Union : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Adv. ----------- 05. 15.11.2010 In spite of indulgences granted to the Union of India to file counter affidavit under orders dated 4.10.2010, 26.10.2010 and 2.11.2010, the same has not been filed, however prayer is made to grant further time to file the same, which is refused as under orders dated 2.11.2010 it was made clear that no further indulgence shall be allowed. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Head Constable/Clerk in the Central Industrial Security Force(hereinafter referred to as the CISF) vide offer of appointment dated 13.9.2007, Annexure-5. He is aggrieved by the order dated 5.9.2009, Annexure-1, whereunder his services have been terminated under Rule-25(2) of the CISF Rules, 2001. He is also aggrieved by the subsequent order dated 19.3.2010, Annexure-1/A, whereunder reasons in support of termination order dated 5.9.2009 has been indicated by the I.G., CISF. Representation of the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders was also rejected by the Director General, CISF and the order was communicated to the petitioner under - 2 - letter dated 28.5.2010, Annexure-1B. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while he was under training a complaint was made against him by one Sri Raj Krishna dated 19.9.2007 that petitioner an imposter never participated in the typing test held in IOC, Barauni on 30.7.2007 conducted after written test pursuant to advertisement notice. Complaint dated 19.7.2007 of Sri Raj Kishna was entertained, petitioner was asked to appear in fresh typing test in which his typing performance was not the same which he achieved on 30.7.2007. In appreciation of such fact termination order was passed against the petitioner, which is evident from perusal of the subsequent order dated 19.3.2010. It is submitted that petitioner could not achieve the same typing performance which he achieved during the typing test held on 30.7.2007 as during the training petitioner had no opportunity of discharging typing work and the typing performance is dependent upon regular typing practice. It is also submitted that during the typing test held on 30.7.2007 he had used his own Remington type writer, which was not provided to him while asking him to appear in the subsequent typing test conducted after receipt of complaint from Sri Raj Krisha. In this connection, it is submitted that had the petitioner being given opportunity to appear in the fresh typing test after undertaking typing practice on his own Remington machine he would have attained the same performance, which he achieved during the first typing test held on 30.7.2007. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that Sri Raj Krishna who had filed the complaint was not available to pursue the same, the authorities - 3 - in spite of notice ought not to have proceeded on the complaint. 4. This Court is not required to assess the typing performance shown and achieved by the petitioner, which is the concern of the authorities. The services of the petitioner being terminated on the allegation that he is an imposter who never participated in the typing test conducted on 30.7.2007, as such, he is required to be given opportunity of being heard by serving him the charge memo alleging that he did not participate in the typing test conducted on 30.7.2007 and that his typing performance does not meet the requirement as provided in the advertisement. In appreciation of the aforesaid legal position, I set aside the termination order dated 5.9.2009 as also the subsequent orders dated 19.3.2010 and 28.5.2010, Anneuxres-1, 1/A and 1/B with direction to the authorities to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter serve him with the charge memo and proceed in accordance with law. Arrears of salary for the period of termination with effect from 5.9.2009 till the date of this order shall be subject to the result of the proceeding which will be taken against him in compliance of this order. Petitioner be paid salary with effect from the date of this order, provided he submits his joining within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)