PRAVEEN TOMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein applied for a post in the Army. After due selection he was enrolled in Rajputana Rifles Centre, Delhi Cantt. on 20th december, 2003. After completion of one year Infantry Army Training he was posted as Sepoy to 4 Rajputana Rifles and he reported for duty on 29th December, 2004 When he had spent about 1 year 10 months in the service, he was served with charge sheet dated 12th August, 2005. As per the said charge sheet, following charge was made against him:-

(2.) THUS the charge against the petitioner was that though he was facing trial under Section 302 of the IPC at the time when he made application for appointment/enrollment for service in Rajputana Rifles Regiment, he did not disclose this fact in the application furnished by him inasmuch as against specific column eliciting this application he had given the answer in the negative. Therefore, according to the respondents it was a false information since case under Section 302 IPC was pending against him at that time.

(3.) A summary of evidence was conducted on 26th August, 2005. On that date petitioner also made the statement. In this statement he did not dispute that the case under Section 302 IPC was pending trial against him at the time he made application for appointment and further that he had not disclosed the same in the application. However, his explanation was that the incident of murder in which he was implicated happened at the time when petitioner was a student and only 15 years of age and a false case had been foisted upon him. He further stated that he was acquitted by the court in the said case. He also mentioned that he had revealed this fact to the Coy. Cdr. Capt. Vijay when he was still undergoing training and had already completed training for about 5 months. He was given leave of 28 days and Capt. Vijay told him to produce the copy of the court order in case the petitioner is acquitted. Thereafter he had produced the copy of the order, after his acquittal. Thus his explanation was that he had informed the authorities who were aware of the pending proceedings and, therefore, no action should be taken against him.