PRASHANT NANA PATIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as Constable/GD with Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on or about 7/10/2014. The Petitioner was terminated from service on 28/11/2016. The representation filed by the Petitioner is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable after due selection process. The Petitioner is terminated from service only on the ground that the Petitioner had written "NO" in the verification form against the column "whether the Petitioner was arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down / fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence". According to the learned counsel, a criminal case filed against the Petitioner was compromised and the criminal proceedings were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad on 7/10/2014. On 7/10/2014, the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable. The verification form was filled in by the Petitioner on 8/11/2014 and as the criminal case was already quashed on the date the verification form was filled in, the Petitioner had written "NO" against the column "whether the Petitioner was arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down / fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence". The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011 (4) SCC 644. The learned Counsel submits that in the case of similarly situated employee the Respondents have taken a liberal view and have reinstated him in service though the said employee was also prosecuted and he had mentioned "NO" against the similar column.