KRISHNA CHANDRA CHAURASIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2003 rendered by learned single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant-petitioner Krishna Chandra Chaurasiya applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in Border Security Force and he filled up the prescribed form. While filling up the form on 6.3.2002, he had to give certain informations to the queries as detailed in Part A. In the answer to query at Sl. No. 12, he was to give the detailed particulars if he was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, bound over, interned, extended or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or outside'. In reply to this query, the simple answer given by the petitioner was 'No'. After the form was filled up, the petitioner was called for physical test and interview in which he was finally selected for being included in the select list of candidates. Subsequent thereto, a character verification of the petitioner was got conducted through the District Magistrate who submitted the same to respondent No. 3, A.D.I.G./ Commandant S.T.C./Border Security Force, North Bengal, Salugara, District Jalpaigudi stating that on inquiry, the petitioner was found implicated in a Case Crime No. 209/1996 under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 504, I.P.C. and also under the provisions of Section 3 (i) (x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short S.C./S.T. Act). The petitioner contends vide paras 7 to 11 of his pleadings in the petition that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid case by one Shiv Kumar Dhobi. He had absolutely no knowledge of the alleged incident and was only 15 years of age at that point of time. In fact, petitioner's mother on that date was beaten by the complainant Shiv Kumar Dhobi and she received serious injuries. His brother was also beaten and an F.I.R. was lodged on 2.6.1996. In order to counter it the aforesaid, Shiv Kumar Dhobi lodged the cross F.I.R. On account of his association with the police the said Shiv Kumar Dhobi got the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner was never in picture nor did he know anything about the alleged F.I.R. or consequent charge-sheet pending trial in the concerned Court when he filled up his form and gave declaration for the purpose of recruitment/enrolment to the aforesaid post of Constable in the Border Security Force. The criminal proceedings of which cognizance has been taken for removing the petitioner from the service by the respondent, relates to a very petty matter and no serious view of the same should be taken as to occasion an order of his dismissal from the service. The petitioner further contended that he was wholly ignorant about the entire matter of the pendency of the criminal case against him and his declaration in the prescribed form of enrolment should not be taken as seriously as to charge and punish him with dismissal from service as Constable.

(3.) The petition was contested and counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable in Border Security Force was subject to the verification of his character of antecedent roll and when on verification it was found that on the basis of F.I.R. lodged in the year 1996, a criminal trial was pending against him In a competent court, the department took up the matter and when it was noticed that the petitioner had given false answer to the question No. 12 of his enrolment form, it amounted to an offence under Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968. Accordingly, a trial was ordered in which after due notice, the proceedings were completed and punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. Vide para 13 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent pleaded that on the top of the enrolment form there was a warning in the following words : "Your are warned that if after enrolment, it is found that you have given a willfully false answer to any of the first 12 of following questions you will be liable to be punished as provided in the Border Security Force Act, 1968." Since at the trial the petitioner was found to be guilty under Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968 for giving willful false answer to the question No. 12 contained in Part A of the enrolment form, he has been awarded the punishment and his antecedent roll was also not found up to the standard on account of his involvement in a criminal case since 1996.