PRABHAKAR RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 29.4.1994, 17.1.1995 and 27.3.1996, whereby petitioner has been terminated from employment, by giving one month's notice, and has been affirmed in appeal and in departmental revision.

(2.) Petitioner contends that he had participated in open competition, and was selected for appointment as a Constable (General Duty) in C.R.P.F. on 6.10.1993. Pursuant to such selection, petitioner was appointed, and he joined and worked for about 8 months. A notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner invoking the powers under sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of The Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, readwith Rule 16 of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, terminating his services by giving him a month's notice. It is in pursuance to the said notice that the services of petitioner were actually discharged w.e.f. 3.6.1994. Petitioner thereafter claims to have submitted a representation stating that on account of a family dispute, he had been falsely implicated in a criminal case, in which he has already been discharged, and therefore, no occasion has arisen for the authorities to have terminated his services. A departmental appeal was also preferred by the petitioner against the order, which has been rejected. Aggrieved by such orders, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7946 of 1995, which was dismissed after noticing that petitioner has a remedy of filing revision against the orders impugned. Petitioner, consequently, preferred a revision before the Director General, annexing therewith the order passed by the criminal court in Sessions Trial No.472 of 1993, conducted under Sections 395, 397 and 307 I.P.C., in which the petitioner had been acquitted in the absence of evidence. The revisional authority noticed the contentions of the petitioner, and it was recorded that the petitioner had in fact suppressed the pendency of criminal case against him, while seeking employment in the C.R.P.F. A false disclosure had been made before the authorities that there was no criminal case pending against him. Since the petitioner had obtained appointment on the strength of suppression of material facts, therefore, the revisional authority also found no infirmity in action of the respondents in discharging him from services. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the judgment passed in sessions trial, submits that petitioner had been falsely implicated, inasmuch as there was a dispute of landed property within the family, and it was only for ulterior reasons that he had been implicated in a criminal case in the year 1988. It is stated that there was neither any injury caused to anyone nor any evidence was led, and it appears that better sense prevailed upon the family members, and as such, the criminal proceedings were not pursued any further, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that Senior Superintendent of Police had also issued a certificate to the petitioner clearly stating that implication of petitioner was in a cross case, which apparently was for settling the inter se disputed within the family, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted, and therefore, no further complaint against the conduct of petitioner had been noticed.