AKHILESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjay Yadav, J.I.A. No.9551/2014, an application for hearing at motion stage. Taking into consideration the nature of dispute involved and that the pleadings are complete, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is finally heard.

(2.) The solitary issue, which arises for consideration is whether the respondents having satisfied with the disclosure and declaration given by the petitioner on his being appointed as Warder/Prahari in Central Jail, in the Character Verification Roll about the offences registered against him and coaccused under Sections 294. 451, 147, 323/149 and 506 -B of the Indian Penal Code, having been compromised, acquitting the petitioner from said charges, are justified in their action in dispensing with the services of the petitioner by order -dated 8.12.2013, holding him unfit for the j ob.

(3.) Relevant facts, briefly are, that in pursuance to selection of Prahari in Jail Department taken recourse to vide Joint Selection Examination, 2012, the petitioner was selected and vide communication dated 14.12.2012 was called upon to submit his option for appointment. Thereafter, vide order -dated 16.12.2012, the petitioner was appointed as Prahari in grade 5200 -20200+1900 subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions in the appointment letter. One of the conditions was that the appointment was subject to character verification. In character verification form which the petitioner was required to fill in on 1.1.2013, petitioner disclosed the fact about the registration of offences under Section 323, 294, 506 -B and 451 of the IPC vide Crime No.90/2010 and acquittal of the charges as the matter was compromised.