KRISHNA CHANDRA CHAURASIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Petitioner, Krishna Chandra Chaurasia aggrieved by an order dated 27th September, 2002, passed by Respondent No. 3, the Additional Director General/commandant, S. T. C. , B. S. F. North Bengal, Siliguri, District Jalpaiguri (W. B.), copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'10' to the writ petition, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, whereby the petitioner was terminated during his training period on the basis he had made false declaration in his enrolment form.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present petition are that the petitioner after being selected by the Respondents was recruited for the post of Constable in Border Security Force. On recruitment, report regarding antecedent of the petitioner being involved in a criminal case or any criminal case being pending was verified. THE petitioner's information was subjected to the verification by recruiting agency. THE petitioner has denied his involvement in any case or in criminal case being pending against him on the date when he filled up the application for recruitment. On verification, it was found that the statement furnished by the petitioner was not correct.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued firstly that the offence in which the petitioner was involved, was a petty offence and further since he does not come within the ambit of offence of involving moral attitude, the action of the Respondents to refuse to send him for training and cancelling his recruitment is bad in law as well as contrary to the statutory rules, whereas similarly situated other persons, who were found correct, have been directed to proceed with the training. So far as the argument based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,1950 is concerned the petitioner cannot be categorised in the same place because of his involvement in a criminal case, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to and deserves to be rejected. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court reported in [1997 (2) LBESR 448 (All) : (1997) 2 U. P. L. B. E. C. 1201] Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur. LEARNED Counsel has further relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in [2000 (2) LBESR 49 (All) : (2001) U. P. L. B. E. C. 763] Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, wherein the petitioner was refused to be appointed as Mazdoor on the charge that he has not mentioned in his statement given to the recruiting authority that he was facing a criminal case. The Division Bench of this Court in the case, referred to above, has relied upon the decision in the case of Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur, reported in [1997 (2) LBESR 448 (All) : (1997) 2 U. P. L. B. E. C. , 1201].