SATISH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this court assails the speaking order dated 16th October, 2004 passed by the respondents holding that the petitioner had given wrong information at the time of his recruitment into the Indo -Tibetan Border Police (hereafter referred to as 'ITBP') and thereby terminating his services in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 22 read with Rule 17(iv) of the Into -Tibetan Border Security Force Rules, 1994. The petitioner also assails the order dated 23rd June, 2005 passed by the Director General, ITBP rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the earlier order. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are in a narrow compass. The petitioner was recruited in the ITBP in the year 1990. On 6th February, 2003, he was sent on deputation to the Special Protection Group (SPG) which caused verification of his credentials and antecedents to be done through the Intelligence Bureau. On conducting such verification, the SPG addressed a letter dated 3rd July, 2003 to the DIG (Administration) of the ITBP which was in the following terms: -

(2.) ON receipt of this information, the respondents caused a court of inquiry to be conducted which was constituted under the order no. 2105 -05 dated 31st July, 2003. In this exercise, the petitioner, his father and brothers were joined and made statements. On the basis of the inquiry conducted, the respondents were of the view that the real name of the petitioner was Harish Chandra and that he had used the educational documents of his brother Satish Chandra while seeking recruitment into the ITBP. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2004 was issued to the petitioner in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17(iv) read with Rule 22 of the ITBP Force Rules, 1994. The petitioner stood informed at the time of his appointment that his service could be terminated on the basis of his giving false information. The petitioner was also given an opportunity by the same notice to produce his documents in his defence which was required to be produced within a month. The petitioner replied to the show cause under cover of a letter dated 21st July, 2004 contending that no false information was given; that he was born on 4th September, 1969 at Mal Road, Pauri, District Garhwal and enclosed a copy of the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Pauri. The petitioner also enclosed a certificate issued by the Thornburn Primary School at Chopra, Pauri, district Garhwal to support the same. He claims that he passed the Junior High School at Surkhet, Pauri, Garhwal and enclosed a mark sheet and certificate issued by the school.

(3.) WE may note that the petitioner challenged the inquiry being conducted by the respondents before this court by way of WP (C) No. 15454/2004. This court was not inclined to examine the matter in view of the fact that the inquiry was being conducted pursuant to the notice to show cause issued to the petitioner. In this background, in the order dated 24th September, 2004, it was observed that the matter was not being interfered with. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice and to consider the pleas raised therein and thereafter to pass a reasoned order in the matter. Liberty was given to the petitioner to file any other document that he deemed appropriate in support of his pleas before the respondents.