RAMESH CHANDRA SAROJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Surya Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Singh, Additional Standing Counsel for Central Reserve Police Force.

(2.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Constable (GD), in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 1 -4 -2003. The verification roll in paragraph 12(a) required the petitioner to inform the respondent authorities, as to whether he has ever been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention etc. Para 12(a) and (b) of the Verification Roll is quoted as below:

(3.) SRI B.D. Madhyan, learned senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner was hardly 15 years old when he was involved in a scuffle in the family where he was accused of assaulting his own uncle, on a dispute relating to domestic animals. It was a minor matter. The petitioner did not intend to give false information. It was a bona fide act to secure employment. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is a rustic villager. He had in the fear not to loose employment, replied to Para 12(a) and (b) in the negative. The criminal case was not serious in nature and that his uncle, in his statement before the Court stated that he did not recognize as to who had given him the lathi blow. The criminal case has since resulted into acquittal. Sri Madhyan submits that in such case the petitioner deserves a benefit of doubt and in any case he should not be penalized for a bona fide act on his part. He has relied upon the judgment in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Secretary, Commissioner, North Eastern Railway, 1997(2) UPLBEC 1201; Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 247 and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2000) 1 ESC 688.