PARMOD KUMAR Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, after being selected for the post of a Constable with the respondents -CISF on 28th October, 1996, has assailed an order dated 8th November, 2005, passed by the respondent No. 3 - Director General -CISF, rejecting his revision petition against the order dated 11th /13th November, 2004, passed by the Deputy Inspector General -CISF (the Appellate Authority), imposing upon him the penalty of removal from service.

(2.) The facts of the case are that in the year 1995 -1996, the respondents -CISF had issued an Advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constables. The petitioner had applied in response to the said advertisement, and on 28th October, 1996, he had appeared for the examination at the CISF Unit, BSL/Bokaro and was declared qualified. Prior to his formal appointment, the petitioner was required to fill up an Attestation Form, which he had filled up on 14th November, 1996 and submitted to the respondent -CISF. In Column No. 12 of the said Attestation Form, the petitioner was required to state as to whether he had ever been arrested or prosecuted or kept under detention or bound down or fined by a court of law or convicted by a court of law for any offence. Apart from the aforesaid information required to be submitted by the petitioner in Column No. 12, the opening paras of the Attestation Form had declared as below: -

(3.) At the time of submitting the Attestation Form, the petitioner had replied in the negative to all the queries raised in Column No. 12. Thereafter, vide order dated 10th June, 1997, the petitioner was recruited by the respondents as a Constable (GD).