Delhi High Court has directed the government to reinstate an Assistant Commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) who was sacked from his job in 2009. The court also imposed a fine of Rs.25,000.
A division bench of Justice Gitta Mittal and J.R. Midha said: ‘The respondents (Union Of India) do not even advert to the 45 cash rewards earned by the petitioner (Balwinder Singh) in his 27 years service career which also manifests that the petitioner was rendering satisfactory service.’
Singh through his advocate Rekha Palli had approached the bench for quashing of two orders in 2009 which forcibly retired him at the age of 50.
‘The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of the present litigation which are assessed at Rs.25,000 which shall be paid with his salary immediately after his reinstatement or within six weeks, whichever is prior,’ said Justice Mittal in her order Monday.
Singh joined CISF in 1982 and his last promotion was as Assistant Commandant in May 2006.
Singh had received his termination order on May 21/22, 2009, informing him that he was being retired with immediate effect.
Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation before CISF Director General, which was returned to him informing him that he was required to make a representation to the president.
The petitioner made a representation in July 27, 2009 to the president which was rejected by an order passed on Oct 6, 2009.
‘During his promotion as Assistant Commandant in long 27 years, he had earned an ‘average’ 44 Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). The same shows that out of these 44 ACRs, only seven were ‘average’ while all other ACRs were either ‘good’ or ‘very good’,’ said Palli.
The Bench agreed with her argument, stating that the orders were ‘arbitrary and are clearly in violation of the well settled principles’.
‘The impugned orders of Oct 6, 2009 as well as the May 21/22, 2009 are hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents shall forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits,’ Said Justice Mittal.
Pulling up the centre, the bench said: ‘The respondents were possessed of the entire record of service of a person who has served under them. We find that instead of taking a fair stand and placing both good and the bad points in a person’s profile before the court, the respondents have painstakingly extracted all that is negative in the service record of the petitioner and placed only such negative information.’
‘A completely distorted picture of the profile of the employee is thereby made out,’ added the bench.