Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

RVMJ performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory and upto the mark. The appraisal authority have entered appraisal forms relating to the petitioner from time to time. This court cannot loose sight of the fact that petitioner was appointed to a disciplined force namely Central Industrial Security Force and he was required to discharge the duty of a constable. Hence, performance of the petitioner was required to be assessed by the authorities periodically and it has been done. As already noticed herein above, on completion of two years probationary period on 18.04.2005, his probationary period was further extended upto 17.10.2005. On account of unsatisfactory performance it was further extended to 17.04.2006 from 18.10.2005 and again from 18.04.2006 the probationary period was extended to 17.10.2006.

27. Undisputedly petitioner was continued on probation even after extending the period of probation on 17.10.2006 and his services were not confirmed or the probationary period was not declared as satisfactory. It is in this background the first proviso to Rule 25 comes to into operation and until and unless it has been declared that petitioner had satisfactorily completed the period of probation he is deemed to be on probation. On account of probationary period having been continued even after the period of two years it cannot be construed that he is deemed to have been absorbed as a permanent employee. Petitioner does not dispute that he was appointed on 19.04.2003 and his probationary period was two years. Petitioner no where disputes in his writ petition that his period of probation was not for two years. In other words he has accepted the probationary period was for a period of two years. When so construed the second proviso which has been pressed into service by Sri.Rajgopal to contend that on account of probationary period not having been extended after 17.10.2006 and as such the petitioner is deemed to have been absorbed as permanent employee of CISF cannot be accepted. Yet one another reason is second proviso to Rule 25 would indicate that no member of the force shall be ordinarily kept on probation for more than twice the period prescribed in the respective recruitment rules.

(Emphasis supplied)

32. A combined reading of Rules 15(1) and 16 and paragraph 5 of the conditions of appointment makes it clear that a person appointed as a Probationary Officer remains on probation for a minimum period of two years at the end of which he is entitled to be confirmed if the competent authority is of the opinion that he has satisfactorily completed the training in any institution to which he may have been deputed and the in-service training in the Bank. The Probationary Officer can also be subjected to screening for judging his merit and suitability. If the Probationary Officer fails to satisfactorily complete the training(s) or fails to pass the screening test or his service is not satisfactory, then the Bank can extend the period of probation by a further period of which the outer limit is one year. In a given case, the competent authority can, if it is of the opinion that the Probationary Officer is not fit for confirmation, terminate his service by one month's notice or payment of one month's emoluments.

43. Thus, from the analysis of facts and the case laws referred to herein above, it would emerge that petitioner was appointed as a constable and was placed on probationary period and on account of authorities recording in the appraisal reports that petitioner service was not satisfactory his probationary period was extended from time to time and his services was terminated by impugned order. Said order of termination is a discharge simplicitor and not a discharge with stigma and hence points 1 and 2 formulated herein above is answered by holding that order of termination dated 15.03.2007 Annexure-F confirmed by reviewing authority by order dated 18.06.2008 Annexure-L-1 is in consonance with the CISF Rules 2001 and the dicta laid down by the Apex Court.