BIRENDRA MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASED on a written examination and interview, to fill up the posts in constabulary of CISF (respondent No. 2) the petitioner was, on his selection, offered an appointment as a constable vide letter dated 14. 1. 2002. Pursuant to such offer of appointment, the petitioner reported at Training Centre, cisf, Arrakkonam, Tamil Nadu on 21st of April, 2002 and was, thus, appointed as a temporary constable in CISF with effect from 21st of April, 2002 (FN ). The aforesaid letter dated 14. 1. 2002 offering appointment to the petitioner, was accompanied by an Attestation Form to be filled up by him and submitted to the respondent No. 2 at Tamil Nadu at the time of his joining. Column 12 (b) of the Attestation Form required an information to the following effect: "have you ever been prosecuted?" To this, the information, as furnished by the petitioner, was 'no'.

(2.) VIDE letter dated 12. 6. 2002, the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of two years on being appointed as a temporary constable, subject to the condition that in the event of his being found unsuitable for retention in the service at any time either during the period of his initial training or the period of probation, his services were liable to be terminated.

(3.) IN November, 2003, the petitioner was served with a memo requiring him to submit his explanation for suppressing the information against column 12 of the Attestation Form that he had been named as an accused in case FIR No. 68/93 dated 3. 8. 1993, PS Daudpur, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 337/34 IPC and prosecuted in that case. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19. 11. 2003, in which, he though did not dispute his name figuring as an accused in the FIR and his subsequent prosecution, he added that it was a false case reported by his real uncles on account of disputes between his father and uncles in respect of partition of ancestral properties and that the case was later compromised between his parents and uncles. It was further submitted that since the matter had been compromised, he was, at the time of filling up column 12 of the Attestation Form, under the impression that no offence had been committed by him and that there could be no question of any punishment for the same. Acknowledging the lapse on his part in furnishing correct information, the petitioner pleaded that it had happened due to ignorance and that he deserved to be dealt with leniently on humanitarian consideration.