RAM SAHAY Vs. INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE MHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.6.1996 terminating his services by the Additional Deputy Inspector General, Indo Tibetan Border Police. He applied for being appointed as Constable. He was to fill up a form called 'Verification Roll'. In column 12 of the form, there are two clauses which are as under: "(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/lined, convicted by a Court of Law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law, University or any other Education Authority/Institution at the time filling up this Verification Roll'. If the answer to (a) or (b) is 'yes' full particulars of the case, arrest, detention/ line, conviction, sentence, etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/ University/Education Authority, etc. at the time of filling of this form should be given." The answer given by him is 'No'. That means, there are no proceedings pending against him on the date of the filling up of the form in 1995.

(2.) On the 15th of May, 1996, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. The same reads as under: "The undersigned is directed to say that your C & A Verification enabling this office to judge the authenticacy of particulars furnished thereon was forwarded to the civil administrative authority. The Sr. Supdt. of Police, Aligarh (UP) has reported that an FIR 33/90 u/Secs. 147/148/149/452/321/504/506, IPC has been registered/lodged against you for which the case is pending in the Court of Law. 2. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid report relating to your Character, the undersigned agrees with the report and holds that you have furnished false particulars vide Sr. Nos. 12(a) and (b) in form ITBP-25 Verification Roll. The undersigned has, therefore, provisionally came to the conclusion that NK (CM) Ram Sahay, of Admn. Wing. BTC, ITBP is not a fit person to be retamed in service and, therefore, the undersigned proposes to impose on him the penalty of termination from service as per the provision contained in Rule 22 read with Rule 17 of ITBP Rules, 1994.

(3.) NK (CM) Ram Sahay of BTC, Admn. Wing is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Civil Police in C & A Verification. Any representation which he may wish to make on the penalty proposed will be considered by the undersigned. Such representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum by NK (CM) Ram Sahay." 3. On the 15th of June, 1996, the petitioner gave a statement which reads as under: "It is humbly submitted that the applicant No. 958010174 Ram Sahay was recruited in the 22nd Bn ITBP in Jalandhar, Punjab on 28.11.1995 and was posted to BTC Bhanu consequently. The Police Verification took a negative view of the applicant's behaviour and conduct with his close members of family on the basis of which the service of the applicant is being terminated. The Sessions Court, Aligarh U.P. in its judgment/order dated 5.6.1996 has favoured a compromise by the concerned parties and acquitted the applicant of charges. Sir,the services of the applicant are being terminated for not fumishing correct facts in the recruitment form. This has demoralised the applicant and make his future dark. The applicant makes earnest request that his services may not be terminated on the ground of furnishing wrong statement and any other punishment other than termination will be acceptable to him. He promises to prove himself to be a good citizen of the country in future." This is disputed by the petitioner on the ground that it was taken by force and he was not a consented party thereto.