NARESH BALIRAM INGLE Vs. COMMANDANT CISF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was employed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (for short CISF). While the petitioner was working as Constable, by an Office Order dated 6.2.2005 issued by the respondent, he was informed that certain adverse remarks were made in his service book under the column 'Annual Remarks' by his superior officers and he was directed to make efforts to ensure that such shortcomings did not occur in his service. While so, within three days from the date of Office Order, the impugned order dated 9.2.2005 was passed by the respondent terminating the petitioner from service on the ground that he suppressed his involvement in a criminal case at the time of his entry into the service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on receipt of the Office order dated 6.2.2005, indicating the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case, he verified it with his native place and came to know that his name was included in a first Information Report registered in Crime No.3 802 of 2002 on the file of Nandura Police Station against 17 persons in relation to an alleged incident that took place in a wedding ceremony on 6.3.2002 violating Section 136 of the Bombay Police Act. In the said case, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 12. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no role to play in the alleged incident nor was he involved in the incident which formed the basis of the criminal complaint. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was falsely roped in as an accused in the criminal case, which relates to an alleged violation of prohibitiory order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was therefore not aware of the registration of the criminal case against him besides that the very same Inspector of Police, Nandura Police Station had issued a Character and Anteceedent Certificate on 3.6.2002 in favour of the petitoiner stating that the petitioner had no bad anteceedent or that he had not involved in any criminal case, three months after the alleged incident. Furthermore, the criminal proceedings were subsequently dismissed on 13.10.2010 on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish both the existince of a prohibitory order and the presence of the accused. Immediately after discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case, he made a representation on 15.11.2010 through his counsel bringing to the notice of the respondent the discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case and sought for reinstatement in service. On 28.1.2011, the respondent sent a reply stating that the petitioner had suppressed his involvement in the criminal case at the time of his appointment in CISF and furnished false information in attestation form as well as Character and anteceedents and therefore, his termination is valid and his exoneration from criminal case will not be a ground for reinstating him in service.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Rule 25 of CISF Rule,2001 contemplates that suppression of fact regarding pendency of criminal case against an individual is a violation of the conditions of service. Relying on Rule 25, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that as contemplated therein, the respondent terminated the service of the petitioner after paying one month's pay in lieu of a notice and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from the violation of principles of natural justice. As per the CISF Rules, the respondent has got every right to terminate the services of the petitioner, who was under probation. Since the petitioner suppressed his involvement in the criminal case at the time of his entry into the service, especially a disciplined force, the punishment of termination of service is valid and proper. Merely because the petitioner was subsequently acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that will not be a ground for the petitioner to seek for reinstatement in service or it will give a legal right in favour of the petitioner to seek re-employment. When the respondent had followed all the Rules and Regulations before passing the impugned order of termination, interference of this Court is not warranted and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.