HEMANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was initially employed as an ad hoc constable in Central Reserve Police Force on 6.9.1989. He was subsequently made permanent. At such stage, petitioner was required to submit his details in a verification roll, in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955'). Clause 12(a) of the verification roll, which is relevant for the present purposes, is reproduced:-

(2.) Petitioner filled up the form answering it as "No". The verification roll filled by the petitioner in his own hand writing was then sent for verification to the District Magistrate concerned and it transpired that a Case Crime No.43-A of 1987 under sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. was registered against him on 9.3.1987 and a charge sheet under section 323, 324 I.P.C. had been filed against him, which was pending adjudication in the trial court. A notice thereafter was issued to the petitioner in the matter by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was required to fill the verification form in the office where there was no sufficient light, as such, he could not correctly mention details in the verification roll, particularly as large number of candidates were to submit such details on the same evening. It was also stated that the uncle of petitioner was done to death by his opponents on 9.3.1987, while he was returning from appearance in court at Jaunpur and being present alongwith him, petitioner is a witness in the criminal proceedings, instituted as Case Crime No.43 of 1987 under section 302 I.P.C. against 5-6 persons. Some of the assailants were arrested and according to the petitioner, a false case was filed, instituting proceedings under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.3.1987. In the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner, charge of concealment and suppression of criminal case was found to be established. However, the disciplinary authority, noticing the fact that filing of the case against petitioner was merely a counter blast, proceeded to pass orders, exercising his powers under the Rules of 1955 and imposed punishment of reduction to lower stage in time scale by three stages, for a period of three years w.e.f. 1.8.1996 to 31.7.1999 vide order dated 30.7.1996. This order was not challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) However, it appears that the order dated 30.7.1996 was placed before the D.I.G. Concerned, who exercising the revisional jurisdiction conferred, by virtue of rule 29-D, issued a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply as to why punishment be not enhanced and he be not dismissed from service. After hearing the petitioner, the revisional authority exercising his powers under section 29-D of the Rules of 1955, reviewed the order of the disciplinary authority, on the ground that the departmental instructions contained in the order dated 19.5.1993 had provided that in a case of suppression of criminal antecedent, the punishment of dismissal is the only appropriate punishment, which has been violated. Consequently, the revisional authority proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service.