SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of M. P. Nos. 1466 and 1467, both of 1989. Both petitioners have a common grievance and indeed, respondents have raised a common plea in the instant petitions claiming that they are not entitled to any relief from this Court on the basis of a single legal contention raised in returns filed in both petitions which is forcefully and very competently pressed by Shri Mittal.

(2.) PETITIONER Sushil Kumar of M. P. No. 1466 of 1989 was appointed under Order, Annexure P/l, dated October 26, 1988 on being selected in the test conducted for that purpose, in the post of Constable/lineman. The other petitioner Virendra Singh of M. P. No. 1467 of 1989, it is not disputed, was appointed as a Naik/radio Operator, vide order dated April 23, 1988. It is also not disputed that services of both petitioners under orders of appointment are to be governed by the provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, for short, the 'act' and the Rules framed thereunder in 1955, for short, '1955 Rules' or the 'rules'. Both petitioners are aggrieved as their services have been terminated, in the case of Sushil Kumar, under Order, Annexure P/3, dated November 8, 1989 and in the case of petitioner Virendra Singh, under Annexure P/l, dated October 11, 1989, extracted as (A) and (B) below:

(3.) THE admitted position on facts is that both petitioners had duly rendered one year's service in the respective unit in which they were attached and as is obvious from order dated November 8, 1989, petitioner Sushil Kumar was given a marching order without any notice whatsoever. In the returns, the stand taken by the respondent is that the two petitioners are not entitled to any protection and any relief under the Constitution or the law in any manner because they had suppressed material information in the form meant for their enrolment. Interestingly and indeed, admittedly, it is not, and cannot be, disputed that both petitioners were duly "enrolled" as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules aforesaid. In the return, at para 3, in Sushil Kumar's case, it is stated that on verification being made of the forms, the District Magistrate, Shivpuri, reported on October 8, 1989 that on November 1, 1984, the petitioner was arrested under Sections 151/107/116 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, but that fact, the petitioner did not disclose in the enrolment form. In the other return, filed in the case of Virendra Singh, the averment made is that it was disclosed in the report received from D. I. G. , C. I. D. , Lucknow, that a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner under Sections 323/324, Criminal Procedure Code and that fact he has suppressed in the enrolment form.