MALLAPPA HOLKUNDI Vs. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enlisted as constable on 21.05.2010 in Central Reserve Police Force at Group Centre, Bangalore and was allotted to 116 Battalion. On 11.09.2011, notice of termination of his service was issued to him invoking Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules'), by the Commandant of the Office of Director and Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur, (Bihar). By the said termination notice-Annexure-A, petitioner was informed that his service stood terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on him or tendered to him. This was followed by office order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Commandant, 116 Battalion, CRPF, Muzaffarpur, whereby the name of the petitioner was ordered to be struck off from the strength of Unit with effect from 22.11.2011 on expiry of the period of one month (notice period) from the date of service of notice. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Border Security, CRPF, Patna, (Bihar).

(2.) By order dated 06.03.2012, the Inspector General of Police has, after going through the records and comments furnished by the authorities, rejected the said appeal. The said order makes it very clear that while carrying out verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, vide letter dated 21.09.2010 had communicated about the accusation made against petitioner in Case No. 49/2007 registered by Nimbarga Police under Sections 324 and 504 of IPC, which had resulted in acquittal on 25.03.2008. Besides, petitioner was involved in Case No. 51/2007 under Section 107 of Cr. PC, which was closed on 18.12.2007 by the Taluka Magistrate, Aland.

(3.) On the ground that petitioner had failed to inform about his involvement in these two cases while filling up CRPF Form No. 25 (Character and Antecedent Role) and on alleged suppression of fact from the department, the Appellate Authority found that the notice of termination dated 11.09.2011 had been given to petitioner and it was in that background his services were terminated under the Provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Rules. The appellate authority has further proceeded to hold that comments furnished by the concerned authorities revealed that he had failed to disclose about accusations made against him in criminal cases and therefore termination of his service was justified. The appellate authority has also come to the conclusion that as the appellant had tried to conceal the facts while filling up verification roll and had thereby kept the department in dark, he was guilty of dishonesty and hence order of termination was upheld and appeal was dismissed. Against this order of the appellate authority, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Special Director General, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police. Force, Salt Lake, Sector-III, Kolkata-700106. (West Bengal). By order dated 22.06.2012, the revisional authority dismissed the petition holding that there was no provision to prefer revision. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities, this petition has been filed.