(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the IG-cum-CSC, RPSF, New Delhi whereby his candidature for the post of Constable in the RPF/RPSF has been cancelled and he has been discharged.
(2.) Mr.Anil Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been found guilty of suppression of facts relating to his involvement in a criminal case as the details of the case were disclosed by him in the Attestation Form. He stated that while issuing the first discharge order dated 29.07.2015, which was set aside by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled citing the reason to be 'suppression of fact' in the Attestation Form about the pendency of the criminal case against him thereby violating the provisions contained in Para 3 of the Attestation Form. In the second discharge order dated 19.05.2017, passed on the representation of the petitioner, the respondents have confirmed that the petitioner had made true disclosure about the registration of the criminal case.
(3.) Mr.J.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/UOI contended that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and in view of his criminal antecedents, he was not considered fit to be appointed as a member of RPF/RPSF for the reason that the standard expected of a person intending to serve a uniformed force, is distinguishable from other services and that a member of a uniformed service has to be judged on higher standards so far as character and the moral fibre of the candidate is concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in W.P.No.52190/2015, the limited relief granted to the petitioner by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was that he be given an opportunity before re-considering the matter in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.