NIRBHAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22nd January, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short the tribunal') in OA No. 418/2008, wherein the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order dated 8th March, 2007 whereby the order of termination of the applicant's services initially passed by the competent authority on 12th January, 1999 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for short the 1965 Rules') was confirmed after the matter was remanded by this Court.

(2.) The facts that have been exposited are that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police for special recruitment in Moga (Punjab). He filled up an Application Form and thereafter the Attestation Form. He was medically examined and was selected for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and joined the duties on 27th March, 1998. After the submission of the Application Form, a case was registered against his brother and himself under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC') at PS Mehna. The charge sheet was filed on 17th April, 1998. Eventually, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 1st September, 1998. However, he did not inform the respondent-employer about his involvement in the criminal case. He remained in judicial custody for about two months in the aforesaid criminal case which was registered for abetting the suicide committed by his brother's wife, late Karamjeet Kaur. The department came to know about his involvement in the criminal case and the factum of detention only after the information given by Sri B.S. Ramoowalia, the ex Minister of Welfare. As the factual score would further depict, a show cause notice dated 28th September, 1998 was served on him to explain why his services should not be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the 1965 Rules for concealment of fact after joining the service by adopting deceitful means which was deliberate and intentional. The petitioner replied to the show cause stating, inter alia, that he was not aware of the provision when the Application Form and Attestation Form were filled up; that there was nothing against him and he had been falsely implicated in the case; and that he was ultimately acquitted and, hence, there was no justification to proceed against him.

(3.) The respondent-employer did not find the reply satisfactory and by order dated 12th January, 1999, his services stood terminated. Against the order of termination, he submitted a representation on numerous grounds which included the ground that removal from service without holding a regular departmental enquiry was vitiated, but the said representation did not render any success to the petitioner.