HC directs CISF to reinstate sub inspector

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to reinstate a sub inspector, holding that his termination was "arbitrary".
Justice V Pathiban, in his recent order, set aside the January 9, 2012 termination of SI (Executive) Thiyagarajan, who contended that the action against him was "vindictive in view of him approaching the court earlier over service matters".
Allowing his plea, the judge directed the CISF to re-instate him within two weeks from the receipt of the order.
"The order of termination passed by the authority without giving any opportunity to the petitioner is, therefore, per-se unreasonable, arbitrary and the same suffers from colourable exercise of power. The termination is founded on malafide intention and cannot be sustained in law," the judge said.

Thiyagarajan had joined the CISF as constable in 1999. He had appeared in the examination for the post of sub inspector in 2010. However, he was not selected citing imposition of some penalty against him in 2005, following which he moved the court and got a favourable order.
He was appointed as sub inspector in 2011. But, he was served termination order on January 9, 2012 without mentioning any reason, following which he moved the high court.

He submitted that no reasons were spelt out for terminating his services.
The petitioner also submitted that the authorities had taken vindictive action as he had approached the court on earlier occasions.

He submitted that even if the department found him unsuitable for the post of SI, he could only be reverted to the post of constable as per CISF rules.
The CISF submitted that Thiyagarajan suffered from contumacious conduct and had not followed the orders passed by superiors on some occasions.
Such behaviour was not in consonance with the discipline expected form uniformed service personnel and therefore, his services came to be terminated.
The judge said the personnel's termination was on the basis of certain allegations and no opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner for disapproving the charges.
"It has to be seen that the authority with a malafide intention slapped the order of termination on the petitioner without spelling out any reason," the court added.