ZAKIRKHAN SIKANDRAKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by respondent No.3, Inspector General of Police and Joint Director, Gujarat Police Academy, Karai, whereby the petitioner has been discharged as Trainee Assistant Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed).

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Assistant Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed) by an office order dated 20.11.2010, pursuant to his being placed in the selectlist of Unarmed Assistant Police Sub Inspectors by an order dated 06.09.2010, after the completion of the recruitment process. As per the order dated 20.11.2010, the appointment of the petitioner was purely on an adhoc basis on a fixed salary of Rs.6,000/ per month, subject to certain conditions as mentioned in the said order. The petitioner was to undergo basic training for a period of one year and upon completion of the training, he would have been placed under probation for a period of eighteen months, during which period he would have undergone Commando training. As per the conditions stipulated in the order, had the petitioner been unsuccessful in his training, he would have been removed from service. However, after a period of five years of satisfactory service, the services of the petitioner would have been regularised. Condition No.2 of the appointment order stipulates that the services of the petitioner are purely adhoc and he could be removed from service without notice, at any point of time. Condition No.23 of the said order further stipulates that if, during the period of contract, the performance of the petitioner is unsatisfactory or he indulges in indiscipline/ misconduct, his services could be terminated without notice. Subject to the above conditions, the petitioner underwent training for a period of about ten months. However, by the impugned order dated 14.09.2011, passed by the third respondent, the petitioner stood discharged from service on the ground that, while filling up the Registration Form he had concealed information that was required to be divulged in Column No.18 of the said Form, to the effect whether he was earlier involved in any criminal case, or not. Against the said column, the petitioner had answered 'no', whereas, it transpired that he was involved in a criminal case at the relevant point of time when he had filled up the Form. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.Parth H. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the sole object and purpose of including a column, such as Column No.18 in the Registration Form, is to elicit information from the Trainee whether he has been convicted in a case involving moral turpitude or antisocial activities, or not. It is submitted that the petitioner has genuinely misunderstood Column No.18 to mean that the information sought to be elicited was whether the petitioner stood convicted in any criminal case. As the case against the petitioner was still pending, he answered 'no' to the said column, under a bona fide belief that he was stating the truth, as per his understanding.