[2026:RJ-JP:2002] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5535/2015 Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi S/o Shri Ajmer Singh Tyagi, aged about 21 years, R/o P.O. Baghel, Tehsil Jaura, District Murena (M.P.), (Constable No.130116095, C.I.S.F.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General (Training Sector H.Q.) Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), National Industrial Security Academy P.O. Hakimpet, District Runga Reddy, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). 3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), RTC, Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6102/2015 Bheemasen Singh Tomer S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Tomar, aged about 25 years, R/o Village & Post- Tareni (Gyan Singh ka Pura), Tehsil Ambah, P.S. Porsa, District Murena (M.P.), (Ex.-Constable No.130105035, C.I.S.F.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General (Training Sector H.Q.) Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), National Industrial Security Academy P.O. Hakimpet, District Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). 3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), RTC, Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Garg with Mr. Kshitiz Singh & Mr. Amulya Jemini on behalf of Mr. S.S. Hora Mr. Manoj Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (2 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/01/2026 1. Matters have come up on an application for seeking final disposal of the writ petitions. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the above application, the same is allowed. 3. As the facts, controversy and cause of action in both the writ petitions are almost similar, therefore, with the consent of parties, both the matters were heard together finally and are being decided by this common order. 4. It is stated that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process on the post of Constable/GD initiated by Central Industrial Security Forces (for short, 'CISF') and after undergoing the entire process, the petitioners were appointed vide orders dated 08.10.2013 on probation of two years. While the petitioner were in probation period, they received notices dated 01.09.2014 revealing therein that although the petitioners were prosecuted in criminal cases, yet in the attestation forms, against column No.12, where they were required to disclose as to whether they were prosecuted or not, both the petitioners mentioned 'No' and such suppression was treated seriously and, therefore, petitioners were asked to show-cause as to why departmental enquiry should not be initiated against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that after receiving such notices, they have filed reply to the notices and submitted that they have already been acquitted in the criminal cases and on account of acquittal, bonafide error in entering information with regard to prosecution was not relevant [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (3 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] and such incorrect information was not given deliberately but was rather on account of their tender age. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that thereafter the initial notice dated 01.09.2014 was not pursued by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners received notices under Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the Rules of 2001') revealing therein that petitioners were in period of probation and the Competent Authority was of the opinion that they were not fit for permanent appointment in CISF. After completion of 30 days statutory period, services of both the petitioners were terminated vide orders dated 25.10.2014. 7. Feeling aggrieved by termination, both the petitioners submitted detailed representations mentioning therein that in fact the termination orders dated 25.10.2014 are not simpliciter in nature, albeit stated to have been issued while assessing the probation period of the petitioners, but are rather stigmatic orders, founded on the initial notices dated 01.09.2014, wherein allegation of suppression of criminal cases was levelled against the petitioners and since the allegation levelled in initial notices dated 01.09.2014 was denied by the petitioners, the proper course ought to have been to conduct a regular departmental enquiry but instead of doing so, in quite malicious and arbitrary manner, the respondents have passed termination orders dated 25.10.2014 showing it to be a simpliciter termination. 8. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the representations filed by the petitioners have been decided by the Inspector General/TS (CISF) vide orders dated 17.01.2015/19.01.2015, bare perusal of the same would reveal [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (4 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] the real intention of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners. Learned counsels indicated that in order dated 17.01.2015/19.01.2015, the Inspector General has given in detail that on account of criminal background of the petitioners, the matter was referred to the Committee for screening and the Committee found that on account of criminal background of the petitioners, coupled with the fact that they have also concealed such a significant fact, their services have been terminated. 9. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that orders dated 17.01.2015/19.01.2015 would establish that the foundation of passing the termination orders was not assessment of probationary work of the petitioners and rather it was stigmatic from the beginning; however, by giving it a colour of simpliciter orders, support of Rules 25 & 26 of the Rules of 2001 has been taken by the respondents maliciously and, therefore, where the powers have been exercised not in bonafide manner but rather in colourable manner by the respondents and stigmatic acts of the respondents have been attempted to be posed as simpliciter termination, in the light of Dipti Prakash Banarjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. reported in 1999 (3) SCC 60, this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction can lift the veil and examine the real reasons for termination of services of the petitioners and since apparently, the reasons are stigmatic and services of the petitioners have been terminated without following the due procedure of regular enquiry, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (5 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] 10. Learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned orders, vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that language of notices dated 21.09.2014 and termination orders dated 25.10.2014 does not cast any kind of stigma over the petitioners and the petitioners were appointed on probation basis, therefore, their service records were being examined for the purpose of confirmation/extension of probation or for discharge of their services. In these instant cases, the Competent Authority was of the opinion that the petitioners were not fit for permanent appointment in CISF, therefore, by exercising the powers under Rules 25 & 26 of the Rules of 2001 the petitioners' services have been terminated strictly as per the Rules in which no infirmity was there. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as orders dated 17.01.2015/19.01.2014 are concerned, such orders have been passed post-termination of services of the petitioners, therefore, the reasons reflected therein cannot be treated as basis of the impugned termination orders. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that even otherwise, CISF is a disciplined force, where degree of discipline is quite higher than the other civil services, therefore, the persons like the petitioners, who were although indulged in criminal cases, yet had audacity to suppress and conceal such relevant information, were not fit for the disciplinary forces like CISF, hence even otherwise, in case, their matters are viewed from this angle, the petitioners are not entitled to remain in CISF. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (6 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] 14. It is not a matter of dispute that initial notices dated 01.09.2014, seeking explanation of the petitioners with regard to alleged concealment in respect of their prosecution in criminal cases, were although replied by the petitioners by narrating their conduct to be bonafide as well as the fact that they have also been acquitted in criminal cases, which were of trivial nature, the facts remain that no departmental enquiry whatsoever was initiated against the petitioners. 15. Instead thereof and soon thereafter, one notice under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2001 dated 21.09.2014 was served apprising the petitioners that the Competent Authority has examined the services of petitioners during the probation period and was of the opinion that the petitioners were not fit for appointment in CISF and, accordingly, one month's notice was served upon the petitioners, which was followed by order dated 25.10.2014, whereby services of the petitioners were terminated in exercise of powers under Rules 25 & 26 of the Rules of 2001. 16. Both the petitioners submitted representation against the termination before the Inspector General/TS (CISF) under Rule 39 of the Rules of 2001 with the contention that the real intention for termination of services of the petitioners was alleged concealment of criminal case, in which the petitioners have already been acquitted, yet it was given a colour of simpliciter termination. 17. This Court finds that the Inspector General/TS (CISF) decided the representations by giving the following reasons, which are extracted from order dated 17.01.2015 filed along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5535/2015: [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (7 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] "3. I, the undersigned, have carefully gone through the case file viz-a-viz the pleas brought out by the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable/GD in the combined recruitment held in the year 2012 and was directed to report at RTC Deoli for undergoing basic training, which commenced from 28-10- 13. The petitioner reported at the Training Centre in time and submitted all the documents including the character and verification certificate, attestation form etc. On verification of his documents, there was nothing adverse found, as such, he was permitted to join the basic training. However, when the character and antecedents of the petitioner were verified from his Home District Authorities, Murena, MP, it transpired that he was involved in a criminal case U/Ss 341, 323, 294, 506B, 336 & 34 IPC and an FIR No. 432/12 dated 05-10-12 was registered against him. However, he was acquitted from the criminal case vide Judgement Order dated 09-12-13. Due to his criminal background, his case was referred to the Standing Screening Committee, as per the directions of CISF HQrs., New Delhi. The 10th SSC Meeting, which was held at the Office of Inspector General, CISF North East Sector, Kolkatta on 09-07-14, declared the petitioner "not suitable for appointment in CISF", primarily due to his deliberate suppression of fact of lodging criminal case against him in the past in the attestation form. In the attestation form under Column 12, he deliberately concealed the facts of institution and pendency of criminal case against him at the time of joining basic training. It is observed that he filled the attestation form on 22-10-13 whereas the criminal case that was lodged against him was disposed of only on 09-12-13. It is apparently clear that the petitioner, with an ulterior motive, had deliberately concealed the facts of institution of criminal proceedings against him and its pendency before the Trial Court while furnishing the information under Column No.12 of the attestation form. The contentions of the petitioner that he did not fill up the attestation form because he was falsely implicated in the case and he inadvertently mentioned "no" in the column of the attestation form etc. are not tenable. Though a notice dated 01-09-14 was initially issued by the Appointing Authority proposing departmental action against the petitioner, but, in view of the decision taken by the 10th Standing Screening Committee, he was subsequently issued with termination notice on 21-09-14 giving him one month notice in lieu of one month's pay and finally his services were terminated on expiry of one month notice period on 20-10-14 vide Termination Order dated 25-10-14. For the delay in issuance of termination order for 5 days, the petitioner is liable to be blamed. As per the statutory Termination Notice dated 21-09-14, he was relieved from all official duties for departmental clearance with effect from 20-10-14 (AN). The petitioner failed to do so and subsequently on verbal directions and counseling, he deposited Government items issued to him and as such, the termination order was issued on 25-10-14. Since he did not perform any official duty from 21-10-14 to 25-10-14, the question of payment of any salary for the said period does not arise at all. The contention of the petitioner that the trial Court had acquitted him and other accused on a day prior to his filling up attestation form on [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (8 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] 26-10-13 is absolutely not based on facts, as the Judgement Order was delivered in the open Court of I Class Magistrate, Joura, Murena, MP only on 09-12-13, as may be seen from the copy of criminal case Judgement Order enclosed with his representation. 4. After going through the case file and other records connected with the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the petitioner suppressed the fact by not intimating the criminal case, which was pending against him, in his attestation form, which has to be considered as a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to conceal the information and to deceive the department in gaining the employment. The criminal case remained pending against him at the time of filling up the attestation from on 26- 10-13 till the time he reported for basic training at RTC Deoli on 28-10-13. As such, the petitioner rendered himself absolutely unsuitable for retention in service for this grave omission, as assessed by the Standing Screening Committee. I, the undersigned, therefore, find no merit in the case and am of the view that the petitioner's services have been rightly terminated by the competent authority. Resultantly, the representation dated 08-11-14 submitted by Ex-Const/GD(U/T) Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi merits no consideration and is hereby rejected." 18. Bare reading of aforesaid reasonings assigned by the Inspector General/TS (CISF) would, in no uncertain terms, reflect the mind of the respondents, which clearly shows that the real foundation for termination of services of petitioners was suppression of their prosecution in criminal cases, which was also the reason for referring their cases to the Screening Committee. However, instead of pursuing the initial notice dated 01.09.2014 for initiating departmental enquiry, the respondents have created a camouflage by issuing notice dated 21.09.2014 followed by termination order dated 25.10.2014 and have attempted to narrate that the termination is not stigmatic but is rather simpliciter in nature. 19. Orders dated 17.01.2015/19.01.2015 passed by the Inspector General/TS (CISF) on representation filed by the petitioners has destroyed their unsuccessful attempt in showing the impugned orders to be simpliciter in nature. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2026:RJ-JP:2002] (9 of 9) [CW-5535/2015] while permitting the Court to lift the veil so as to ascertain as to whether the motive or foundation for terminating the services was simpliciter or is stigmatic, and has further held that in case, the foundation thereof is found to be stigmatic in nature then in that case, merely, by issuing termination order in a simple language showing no stigma would not be sufficient and the order of termination, without initiating regular departmental enquiry can be quashed. 20. In the light of above discussion, analysis of facts and after finding that the basic foundation for passing impugned orders dated 25.10.2014 was stigmatic in nature and same have been passed without conducting any regular enquiry, this Court finds it just and proper to quash the termination order dated 25.10.2014. 21. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners back in services by maintaining continuity in services along with notional benefits from the date of termination of services, however, they shall not be entitled for any actual monetary benefits. 22. Before parting, this Court makes it clear that quashing of impugned termination orders would not preclude the respondents-CISF from initiating regular enquiry pursuant to initial notice dated 01.09.2014. 23. Accordingly, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/18-19