LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-195

BRIJESH SINGH Vs. UOI

Decided On January 20, 2006
BRIJESH SINGH Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected as a Constable in the Boarder Security Force in March, 1987. His enrollment form was sent to the police for verification of his character and antecedents . The Senior Superintendent of Police Agra sent the said enrollment form to the SHO Jaipur District Agra for inquiry. During the inquiry it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case being Criminal Case No. 93/1985 under Sections 147,148,307,308 and 402 I.P.C. and this case was registered against him way back on 12th November, 1985 and charge sheet had also been filed in the court of Sessions and the trial was in progress. This report was forwarded to the Commandant BSF Udampur.

(2.) Since the petitioner had concealed this material fact he was discharged from service on 15th January, 1988 because of concealment of this material fact in the attestation form which contained various columns about the pendency of criminal cases, prosecution, and conviction etc. The petitioner while filling up those columns stated 'No' against all these columns indicating that no prosecution against him was pending whereas in actuality he was prosecuted for commission of the aforesaid offences and the trial of the case was in progress in the court of sessions at that time.

(3.) This fact has not been denied by the petitioner but it is pleaded by him that principles of natural justices were violated by the respondents by not affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard . What else is pleaded by him is that the case resulted in acquittal finally and, therefore, for that reason he was entitled to reinstatement for which he made representation to the respondent which was turned down. The petitioner has further stated that he was not discharged from the service on the ground of concealment of material fact but he was discharged from the service on the ground that he was not likely to be an efficient soldier and therefore according to the petitioner an enquiry should have been held before discharging the petitioner.