MUKESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected as a constable in Uttarakhand police on 1.6.2009. He had to undergo training. While he was under training in the month of June/July, 2009, an impugned order dated

(3.) 7.2009 was passed by Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, Dehradun which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the grounds that his appointment was subject to verification of his papers and his character. During the inquiry, it was found that a case was registered against the petitioner being Case Crime No. 142 of 2001 under Section 3/9 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (from hereinafter referred to as "1998 Act") and he was punished by the Judicial Magistrate (First) Srinagar vide order dated 19.7.2001 and a fine of Rs. 500/ - was imposed upon him. This fact was not disclosed by the petitioner while giving his particulars for the appointment and as such his services were terminated. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner admits that he was convicted under Section 3/9 of 1998 Act. The law under which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a law relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh which was inter alia to prevent use of unfair means in public examinations and to provide for matter connected therewith and incidental thereto. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was writing intermediate examination in Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal where he was caught using unfair means and petitioner further states that at the relevant time he was in the Indian Army. He was though not arrested, and returned back to his duties in his Army Unit. The petitioner states that this nature of offence under which he was charged has to be disposed of by way of summary proceedings and it is an offence of a petty nature. A summon under Section 206 read with Section 253 of Cr.P.C. was received by his father at his native village and consequently a lawyer was engaged and fine of Rs. 500/ - was deposited and the matter come to an end. Of this matter, the petitioner was not even having knowledge that he has been charged and the matter has now come to an end.