So far as this Act is concerned, the intentions are two-fold in bringing this amendment. One is to widen the scope and ambit of this Act itself and the second is, once the scope has been widened, to add certain more duties to the persons in the CISF. Once certain duties have been added to, then the question of punishment will come. The main intention of this Act is to see that the Supreme Court decision on Sanatan Sahu and CISF regarding dismissal from service has to be taken into consideration and a retrospective order is to be made. That has to be made in Clause 10 of this amending Act.

I will start with the amending Act Clause 10 itself. May I request the hon. Home Minister to think of those persons who could not afford to go to the Supreme Court to fight out their case because of certain delegated authority?

Now, this delegated authority is proposed to be validated by clause 10. Those persons who have lost their jobs may not have an opportunity to get their service back. Sanatan Sahu could be one single person who has got the job back. I would request the Government to be condescending enough to take into consideration the memorials. After the Bill is passed, it will be an Act and so nothing can be done later. I would request that the Government should be condescending enough to take up their cases whenever a memorial comes to the Government and see if they could be reinstated in service. That is the first appeal I would make to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs because this would deprive many persons from getting back their jobs.

So far as the ambit and scope are concerned, private industrial undertakings would be able to take the services of the CISF. Since the CISF has the expertise, it would be able to give guidance in running private industrial establishments. The one good provision here is that it will give technical consultancy services and would protect individuals. I had seen earlier that when the CISF was constituted in 1968, the Indian Police Service officers were not interested in going there because many public sector undertakings were taken together and the persons who had been serving in the security Branch in those undertakings who did not have proper training or attitude were taken as part of the CISF. Later on, in 1983, it became a Force. So, some sort of an authority came in; slowly, a good number of people have been recruited.

There were instances when the CISF personnel were willing to give protection to individuals. That is being provided for in this Act so that both establishments and individuals would get equal protection and equal security. By amending section 3 of the CISF Act, the duties of the CISF personnel have been widened. It has been added here `any other duties that may be entrusted by the Central Government'. This, I hope, would mean quelling riots, calamity relief and even anti-terrorist activities. The CISF did a very good job at Paradip during the super-cyclone. It could become a rule since there are provisions for making rules. The duties to be performed as per section 3 could be specified.

Another issue that has come up in the Courts is regarding the punishment that has been provided. In clause 5 (e), it has been provided, `withholding of promotion'. It is not very specific. So far as promotion is concerned, in any police service, if the ACR is not good, if there has been a punishment, the person is not promoted. But if the punishments are expunged or the ACR is expunged, his case comes up before the board which takes up promotions. Withholding of promotions as a punishment may not be good in the sense that as to the period for which the promotion will be withheld, increments can be withheld, as a specific pecuniary loss. But withholding of promotions is very ambiguous and may create confusion as it has created confusion for which clause 10 is being revalidated.

1609 hours (Shri P.H. Pandiyan in the Chair)

So, I would request the hon. Minister of Home Affairs to kindly consider this aspect and remove any confusion regarding punishment as such with regard to withholding of promotion. These are matters which need to be thought of.

Last but not least, there are a number of private security agencies which have come up. Uniformed officers, on retirement, set up such institutions for providing security to industrial organisations. Some of these security organisations have adopted a little bit bullying tactics. In 1987, there was a talk to make an enactment for registration and control of private security agencies but it did not come into being.

Even now, there is scope in this Act to provide for certain regulatory mechanism under the provisions of Sections 3, 10 and 14(a). They are to regulate the work of the private organizations by providing certain provisions under the rules which are being made by the Central Government from time to time. So, I would request that these rules may be made so as to regulate the work of the private security agencies.

With these words, I support the Bill. I thank you very much.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am extremely grateful to all the hon. Members who have participated in this debate.

The focus has been on the conditions of the CISF Services. So far as this Bill is concerned, I can only say that it does not directly relate to that except in minor matters such as the one referred to just now by Shri Anadi Sahu and the Bill essentially does relate to firstly defining or rather, not limiting the CISF merely to public undertakings and widening the scope with which they could be concerned.

The Government does not presently propose that the CISF personnel should be providing security to private enterprises. No. There have been appeals, why can they not give us consultancy or advice, since they have specialisation. So, it was felt that there was no harm in that, whatsoever in the new economic environment that has developed. Shri Rupchand Pal or someone else may continue to have a certain strong bias against the private sector. But this Government does not have a bias against the private sector. We think that both the public sector and the private sector have a very important role to play in the Indian economy and in this, the Government is also to be the principal regulator of the economic growth and economy. Therefore, if it has certain expertise, which it could extend to the private sector, it certainly would be willing to do it.

As you would notice, we have specified it in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that:

"Over the years, the CISF have achieved specialization in the field of industrial security which can be used gainfully by providing consultancy services to the private sector to develop and strengthen their security network. Such consultancy services will be on full cost recovery basis."

I emphasise this and it is not a sort of payment or anything of that kind. I am aware that in March 1999, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Home was held in which this issue of CISF was discussed at length. It is as a result of those discussions that a high level committee was constituted. The information that there was a Nikhil Kumar Committee and then subsequently, there was a Kakkar Committee is not quite correct. There was just one Committee, the Nikhil Kumar Committee; and that Committee made several recommendations. It is a result of those recommendations which were accepted by the Government, that CISF cadre officers today can go up to the level of IG; they can go up to the level of IG. IPS quota has been considerably lowered, after the recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the Government.

So, today the Service Conditions of CISF cadre officers have considerably improved after the discussions among the MPs in the Standing Committee and the decisions of the Government.

As regards the request that has been made by Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi that this Bill does not directly relate to the Service Conditions of CISF, to the direct recruits, their relative positions, vis-a-vis IPS officers, I can only assure the House that I would go into it thoroughly and independently and I would try to see that no injustice is done.

An hon. Member remarked that the CISF has failed to give security to the public undertakings. That is not at all true. Their performance has been very good, and excellent. I must compliment them on the manner in which they have been looking after the 222 public undertakings that we have in this country. As for the concerns expressed by the hon. Members regarding the service conditions, particularly in regard to the grievances of the directly recruited people, I would go into them independently. As far as this Bill is concerned, it provides consultancy services to the private sector and their area of responsibilities would be beyond public undertakings. It would be Government units or Government-funded units.

There was a suggestion that this concept may be extended to the VIP security. But I am of the view that the para-military forces who are on the VIP security need to be withdrawn. The other day I had discussed this matter at some length. So, there is no question of providing this kind of security to the VIPs.

With these few words, I commend this Bill for the unanimous acceptance of this House.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL : I have said that there are many officers in the CISF who have been selected for IPS, IRS etc., and are not allowed to join the same because of Rules 4 and 7, on the premise that all Central Government civil servants cannot be treated on equal footing. Now, after this amendment, will they be adversely affected? If they are going to be adversely affected, how is their interest going to be protected?

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : The hon. Home Minister has just replied that the scope of this Bill is limited to providing consultancy services to the private sector. I think it is very essential. But the moment you say, `any other duties', the duties become an obligation. The apprehension of the CISF is that the parity may not be maintained. Since the hon. Minister has asserted that he would not look into it as it is not linked to the Bill, may I submit, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister, in consultation with officers of his Ministry, to meet a group of officers, whomsoever he feels competent, to remove their anxieties and also to look into some points that they raise.

MAJ. GEN. (RETD.) B.C. KHANDURI : Sir, since 1996 no recruitment has taken place. So, there is a feeling among the officers that their services are being wasted. As the hon. Member has suggested, these sort of misgivings could be removed if an interaction takes place.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I will have a candid interaction with the CISF officers and ensure that if there are any grievances on this score, particularly on the question of parity, they would be removed.

MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.H. PANDIYAN): The question is:

"That the Bill further to amend the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and to validate certain revision petitions disposed of under the rules made under the said Act, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration."

The motion was adopted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, the House will take up clause by clause consideration of the Bill.

The question is:

"That clauses 2 to 10 stand part of the Bill".

The motion was adopted.

Clauses 2 to 10 were added to the Bill.

MR Chairman: The question is:

"That clause 1, Enacting formula and

Title Stand part of the Bill.

The motion was adopted.

Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and the Title were added to the Bill.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill be passed".

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Bill be passed".

The motion was adopted.