NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the termination order dated 30.06.2014, passed by the respondent/Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), terminating him from the post of Constable. The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Screening Committee dated 23.02.2015 wherein it was decided that he was not suitable for appointment in the CISF on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Lastly, the petitioner has raised a grievance against an order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Inspector General/Training Sector, CISF, rejecting his representation dated 30.02015 against his termination order.

(2.) A glance at the facts of the case is necessary. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CISF on 26.10.2013, prior whereto on 07.08.2013, a case under Sections 13/3/67 of the Gambling Act, was registered against him and some other co-accused, vide FIR No.164 dated 07.08.2013, Police Station Sahlawas. It is not in dispute that at the time of filling up his application for submitting his candidature, the petitioner did not state anything about registration of the captioned FIR. While the petitioner was still on probation, the impugned termination order dated 30.06.2014 was issued by the competent authority holding that he was not fit for permanent appointment in the CISF.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said termination order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.09.2014, to the Director General, CISF, wherein while candidly admitting to the fact that at the time of his recruitment, while filling up the columns of the Attestation Form, in the column pertaining to pending police case etc. he had marked "No", he took a plea that at that stage he had no knowledge about the said case registered against him. In the said representation, the petitioner also pointed out that after receiving summons from the concerned Court, he had faced a trial and vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, the trial Court had acquitted him of the charges levelled under Sections 13/3/67 of the Gambling Act. It appears that thereafter, based on the petitioner's representation, his case was placed before the Screening Committee along with several other candidates and the said Committee had turned down his candidature on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case.