KISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 25.10.2007, Annexure-1 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 24.6.2008, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to make payment of salary to the Petitioner along with arrears.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that on the basis of advertisement made by the Respondents for the purpose of recruitment of constables in the State, the Petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and was selected and was sent for training. After completion of the training, he was posted as constable in district-Agra on 4.12.2007. In the mean time, the Superintendent of Police, Agra has issued an order by which the services of the Petitioner has been dispensed with on the ground that he has concealed the material facts and has not disclosed that a criminal case was filed against him under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC. The Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a writ petition but the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Petitioner filed an appeal which too has been rejected by the order dated 24.6.2008. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before this Court that the main ground for terminating the services of the Petitioner was that he has concealed the material facts while filing an affidavit at the time of his selection and has not disclosed the fact that an First Information Report was lodged against him under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC and in pursuance of the First Information Report a case was tried before the Sessions Court. It has further been mentioned that the Petitioner was honourably acquitted by the criminal Court on 1.10.2004. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Petitioner, in the bona fide belief, was under the impression that once he has honourably been acquitted by the criminal Court, then the natural consequence would be that there was no criminal case against him. In the appeal filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has clearly stated that at the time of recruitment in the year 2006, he was only required to sign a proforma and the contents of the said proforma was not shown to him. The act of the Petitioner in not disclosing the aforesaid fact cannot be said to be deliberate and it cannot be termed as concealment of fact. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner concealing this fact cannot be said to be deliberate being the fact that there was no column showing therein that no criminal case was ever lodged against him. Further a submission has been made that before passing the order of termination, no notice and opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the Petitioner by the Senior Superintending of Police, therefore, the order impugned is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The appeal too has been rejected without considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Before passing the order of termination no inquiry was ever conducted neither any show-cause notice was ever given to the Petitioner.