BETHAPUDI VIJAYA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF through orders dated 28-12-1993 and he joined duty on 8-1-1994. He was issued a notice of termination dated 5-8-1994 in exercise of the power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary) Rules 1968 (for short CCS Rules) r/w note (2) of Appendix (f) of the C.R.P.F Rules to the effect that since the respondents have received a letter from the District Magistrate, Guntur about the conduct and character of the petitioner and found that the character and antecedents are not up to the mark and that they intend to terminate him with effect from 5-8-1994. This was followed by a proceeding dated 2-9-1994 terminating him with effect from 3-9-1994. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition.

(2.) The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that after the petitioner was appointed, his antecedents were got verified through the concerned District Magistrate. The respondents have received a letter dated 8-9-1994 from the District Magistrate, Guntur stating inter alia that the petitioner was involved in a crime under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C which was tried as Cr.No.44 of 1989 and the same was ended in conviction. It was further stated that the petitioner was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is also stated that the petitioner has suppressed this information while furnishing the particulars at the time of entering the service.

(3.) Sri P.Venkata Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. He submits that the Provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS Rules are not applicable to the CRPF inasmuch as the field is already occupied by the CRPF Rules framed under Section 18 of the CRPF Act. The second contention is that since the petitioner was extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (for short P.O Act) the petitioner does not suffer any disqualification in view of the protection under Section 12 of the said Act.