T RAJESHKANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein joined the services of the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable on 21.11.2005 and on completion of the training for about 11 months, he was posted in Assam State in 49th Battalion and thereafter shifted to Sri Nagar.

(2.) The respondents came to know about the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case filed under Sections 147, 323, 325 read with 149, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C in C.C.No.119 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dharmapuri. At the time of appointment of the appellant in the respondent-Department, the said criminal case was pending and subsequently, after his joining in the Central Reserve Police Force, the case ended in acquittal on 20.10.2010. Since the appellant suppressed the pendency of the criminal case at the time of recruitment, the fourth respondent issued a charge memo under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the charges have been proved, pursuant to which the appellant was removed from service by order dated 05.09.2012 and the same was confirmed in appeal by proceedings dated 27.11.201 Challenging the said proceedings, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26305 of 2012 and this Court, by order dated 28.04.2017, dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charges framed against the appellant are minor in nature and moreover the case was filed only based on assumptions and presumptions against a group of persons including the appellant; the case filed against the appellant ended in acquittal as the appellant is in no way connected with the said offences. He further submitted that it is a case of family rivalry. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant herein was 24 years at the time of filing of the criminal case and at that age, young people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be condoned. It is his further submission that the approach of the Court should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. To fortify his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeepkumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644. Stating so, he prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and to reinstate the appellant in service.