ANIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by orders dtd. 31/7/2015 (Annexure P/1), 9/2/2016 (Annexure P/2) and 2/9/2016 (Annexure P/3), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service, appeal preferred against the removal and revision preferred against appeal, have been dismissed respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that in pursuance of advertisement issued, the petitioner after having successfully completed the recruitment process, got selected/appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'the CRPF) on 17/3/2011. After selection, the petitioner was required to submit Form CRPF-25 and the petitioner also filled-up the said form, however he did not fill the column 12(a) and (b) in respect of the character and antecedents. During character verification, office of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Police Superintendent, vide letter date 30/7/2011 informed the District Magistrate Raipur that Crime No.22/2010 under Sec. 147, 294, 506, 323 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and challan had been filed before the Court of JMFC. Further, the office of Collector and District Magistrate, vide letter date 19/9/2011 informed the Inspector General of Police, CRPC, Police Force, Bilaspur that no such crime/flaw was found in his character as long as the petitioner was in the district. Since the aforesaid reports were contrary to each other, the Commandant 199th Battalion/Appointing Authority (Respondent No.4) vide letter dtd. 15/2/2012 enquired about the correctness of the report from the Collector, Raipur and in reply, the Additional Collector, Raipur, vide letter dtd. 19/7/2012, informed the respondent No.4 that a crime number No.22/2010 for offence punishable under Sec. 147, 294, 506, 323 IPC was registered against the petitioner and he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000.00. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with charge sheet and Departmental Enquiry was proposed against the petitioner on 23/8/2014. After completion of Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dtd. 3/3/2015 before the respondent No.4 and on the basis of which, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dtd. 31/1/2015 (Annexure P/1). The said order dtd. 31/1/2015 was subjected to challenge by way of mercy appeal before the respondent No.3, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 9/2/2016 (Annexure P/2). Further, the petitioner preferred revision, which was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 2/9/2016 (Annexure P/3). Hence, this petition by the petitioner seeking following relief(s) :-

(3.) Mr. Shashwat Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the object of Government order regarding character of candidate for appointment under State Government is that the character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such so as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. Though the criminal case was registered against the petitioner but he was sentenced to pay fine only and not major punishment was awarded to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner bonafidely did not fulfill the column No.12 of verification roll, as such the impugned orders being arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, unreasonable and unauthorised hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the appointing authority respondent No.4 had not gone into the question as to whether the petitioner was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of Constable in which he was appointed and the appointing authority respondent No.4 has only held that the selection of the petitioner was illegal and irregular because he did not fulfill the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. Thus, it was submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate, harsh and excessive punishment and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 3598 : (2016) 8 SCC 471 and decision dtd. 21/11/2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4445/2008 [Vikas Kumar Soni Vs. State of C.G. and Ors.] (2019:CGHC:31284).