RAJENDRA PRASAD DHAKA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEADQUARTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who has been working as a Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as 'CISF') has again approached this Court challenging the orders Ext P5 and P8 terminating his services.

(2.) Petitioner joined duty at the CISF Unit, FACT Udyogamandal on 08.06.2016, on completion of training. While working so, with gradings of 'very good' in the appraisal reports, he received Ext P1 show cause notice dated 30.05.2017, proposing termination of his services alleging that he did not disclose his involvement in a criminal case at the time of his recruitment, in the questionnaire along with the recruitment application form dated 15.7.2014 and the questionnaire at the medical examination held on 23.4.2015 and that he mentioned "no" against "whether any FIR was made in the past" in column No.4 of questionnaire form, which amounted to suppression of facts and violation of declaration given by him in the application submitted for enrollment in CISF on 15.7.2014. Apart from that it was also alleged that at the time of joining CISF, RTC Bhilai, he put his signature in the form of agreement dated 24.2016 where it is specifically stated that "your services are liable to be terminated by competent authority for suppression of any factual information at the time of enrollment". It is further stated that Standing Screening Committee constituted by the competent authority for examining the cases in respect of candidates having involvement in the criminal case in the past examined his case and arrived at the conclusion that he is unsuitable for appointment in CISF on account of his involvement in a serious offence from which he was acquitted since the prosecution did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It was stated that the decision of the committee is approved by the DG/CISF and communicated on 19.5.2017.

(3.) On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply pointing out that he is a member of a downtrodden family from Hindi belt, in poor financial circumstances and that in the absence of anybody to counsel him at the relevant time and due to his inadvertence and inability to comprehend the significance the question, he happened to answer the questions referred, in the negative. He stated that he was only 21 years old at that time and that he happened to make the entries at the time of medical examination, on advice from certain officials since he was already acquitted by the Court. According to him, a false case was foisted against him. Producing Ext.P3 questionnaire submitted at the time of joining, he stated that he furnished correct answers in it and stated that in the certificate of character and antecedents all the details regarding the his involvement in the crime as well as his acquittal by the court were furnished. Stating that he came to know about the mistakes only from the show cause notice, he requested to drop the proceedings, pointing out that any drastic action, on account of the inadvertent mistakes, would deprive the livelihood of petitioner and the members of his family. But without considering any of his contentions in Ext P4 reply, his services were terminated as per Ext P5 order dated 4.7.2017, under sub rule (2) of Rule 25 and sub rule (4) of Rule 26 of CISF Rules, 2001.