GUGAN SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF ). At the time of making application for recruitment to the said post, he did not inform the respondents that there was a criminal case pending against him under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC. It is not in dispute that there was a specific column in the application for giving such an information about the involvement of the applicant in a criminal case. The respondents came to know of the pendency of such a case when verification of the petitioners antecedents was made by requesting Superintendent of Police, Rohtak (Haryana ). The petitioner was still a temporary employee and, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 his services were terminated vide order dated 22. 1. 2000. The petitioner submitted appeal there against, which was also dismissed by the DIG, CRPF on 22. 2. 2000. Thereafter, revision petition was filed, which met the same fate as it came to be rejected on 11. 4. 2000. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid termination order and subsequent affirmation by the higher authorities.

(2.) THE aforesaid factual matrix is not in dispute. The nature of concealment of the pendency of case is reflected in para 3 of the order dated 11. 4. 2000 passed in appeal, which can be reproduced for our benefit :-

(3.) THE question is as to whether the impugned termination order can be faulted with even when it is an accepted position that the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the said case while submitting the application and to that extent he had misrepresented and/or concealed the said fact.