ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed a notice dated 8.7.2006 (annexure 8 to the writ petition) intimating him that his services shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date of expiry of one month from the date on which the notice is tendered; order dated 31.7.2006 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) terminating the services of the petitioner and order dated 3.10.2006 (annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal.

(2.) The petitioner was enlisted as a constable against the strength of group centre on 25.11.2004 in the Central Reserved Police Force, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as CRPF). As per Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, 1965 the petitioner filed a verification roll and accordingly, the same was sent to his native place i.e. District Magistrate, Basti for verification (copy of the verification roll is on record as annexure CA I). The District Magistrate, Basti vide his letter dated 9.2.2005 has intimated that a criminal case no.27 of 2003, under Sections 374/323/504/506/147 IPC and case crime no.405 of 2004, under Sections 384/323 IPC have been registered against the petitioner at police station Lalganj, Basti. Since the petitioner had concealed the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases at serial nos.12 (a) and 12 (b) of the verification roll, thus there has been suppression of a vital information in filling up the aforesaid verification roll and, therefore, a show cause notice dated 17.2.2006 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) was issued to him why his services be not terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.5.2006 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) wherein he feigned complete ignorance as regards the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases. As the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, accordingly, he was issued a notice of termination purporting to be under sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on 8.7.2006 and accordingly, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.7.2006 w.e.f. 11.8.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed, hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Relevant clause in the verification roll i.e. serial nos.12 (a) and (b) is quoted hereunder and in response to both the aforesaid queries the reply of the petitioner was "no":