If, during the probation period of a member of the Central Industrial

If, during the probation period of a member of the Central Industrial Security Force, the appointing authority is of the opinion that the member is not fit for permanent appointment, which one of the following actions cannot be taken by the appointing authority?

The appointing authority may terminate his/her services after giving one month’s notice.
The appointing authority may terminate his/her services with immediate effect but after giving three months’ pay in lieu of the aforesaid notice.
The appointing authority may revert him/her to the rank from which he/she was promoted.
The appointing authority may repatriate him/her to his/her parent department, as the case may be.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
CISF Rules, 2001, Rule 24 deals with the termination of services of probationers. Rule 24(a) allows termination by giving one month’s notice. Rule 24(b) allows termination by paying a sum equivalent to the amount of pay plus allowances for *one month* in lieu of notice. Option B describes terminating services with immediate effect after giving *three months’* pay in lieu of notice. This is not in accordance with Rule 24.
CISF Rules specify termination of probation with one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof, not three months’ pay.
Option A (one month’s notice) and Option C (reversion to promoted rank) are valid actions under Rule 24 for different scenarios of probationers. Option D (repatriation) is also a standard action for deputationists failing probation, though not explicitly detailed in Rule 24 itself. Option B is incorrect due to the specified duration of pay in lieu.
Exit mobile version