Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a) Your services are liable to be terminated at any time on one month's notice during the probation period, i.e., 2 years by the appointing authority without assigning any reason in accordance with provisions contained in CRPF Rules, 1955.
b) ...
c) ...
d) ...
e) ...
f) ...
g) ...
h) ...
i) ...
j) The appointment is subject to condition that there are no criminal or civil case against you and your name does not exist in unwanted personnel list of police and public. If anything is adversely reported in the verification form by the local authorities, your service will be liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice under CRPF Rules-16 read with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965."

25. A bare perusal of the term/condition mentioned at paragraph 3(a) of the appointment order makes it manifest that services of the petitioner could be terminated at any time on one month's notice during the probation period, i.e., 2 years by the appointing authority without assigning any reason and that such power could be exercised in accordance with provisions contained in CRPF Rules, 1955. This particular clause of the appointment order does not speak of resort to the provision of Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1965. Therefore, while invoking the power reserved by the respondents in terms of the aforesaid clause of the appointment order, they could not take recourse to the provision of Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1965. They could, at best, have the recourse to the powers exercisable under the CRPF Rules, especially Rule 16 thereof. However, clause 3(j) of the appointment order, as would be shown below, specifically stipulates the circumstances and reasons in/for which the power under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1965 could be exercised. Not only that, in terms of clause 3(j) even exercise of power under Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1965 is restricted and confined to the reasons mentioned in the said clause. Let the conditions enumerated in clause 3(j) of the appointment order be analysed.

26. Clause (j) under paragraph 3 of the appointment order speaks of the services of the petitioner being liable to be terminated by giving one month's notice under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules read with Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules only in the event if anything was adversely reported in the verification form by the local authorities such as that there was any criminal or civil case against the petitioner and that his name existed in the unwanted personnel list of police and public. That means that in terms of Clause (j) under paragraph 3 of the appointment order of the petitioner, resort could be had to the power under Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules read with Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1956 only subject to the existence of the reason(s)/conditions stipulated in clause 3(j) of the appointment order, and in no other case. However, vis-a-vis the petitioner, the respondents have taken resort only to the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules. This is demonstrated by the contents of the impugned notice dated 25.02.2012 which is extracted below:

It is thus shown that the respondents intended, and have proceeded, to terminate the services of the petitioner by invoking their powers exercisable under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, 1965 and not under Rule 16 or any other provision of the CRPF Rules. As mentioned above, in terms of clause 3(j) of the petitioner's appointment order, vehemently relied upon on behalf of the respondents, the powers under this provision of the Temporary Service Rules could be invoked by the respondents only if anything was adversely reported in the verification form by the local authorities that there was any criminal or civil case against the petitioner and that his name existed in any unwanted personnel list of police and public. That, admittedly, is not the case of the respondents. It is not their case that there was any criminal or civil case against the petitioner and/or his name was found or reported to be existing in unwanted personnel list of police and public. Or that anything was adversely reported in the verification form by the local authorities against him which could make his services terminable by invoking the said clause of the appointment order. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 25.03.2012 is clearly in violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment of the petitioner. This is one aspect of the matter.