CHARAN SINGH KANSANA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed this writ appeal under S. 2 of Madhya Pradesh (Uchcha Nyayalya ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order, dated 10 October 2006, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1402 of 2000 whereby, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are chat the appellant was selected on 23 May 1998 for the post of constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, Shivpuri Under S.ll(l) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, he was to fill up the form No.25 in compliance of Rule 14B of the Rules. He supplied the information but the information as required in the Col. 12 (a) was not answered correctly. In the aforesaid form, it was mentioned that if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the verification roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. Thereafter, on verification, it was found that the appellant suppressed the fact about the factual information sought in the verification roll about the pendency of a criminal case which was registered at crime No. 97 of 1993 at PS Gormi against the appellant for offences under Ss.294, 341 and 506B of IPC and in that case, on 10 December 1993 he was arrested and a challan No. 165 of 1993 was filed on 20 December 1993 against him in the Court of JMFC, Mehgaon, where, a criminal case bearing No. 668 was registered on 24 December 1993 against him and was pending on that day. When the correct information was not supplied and on receiving false information, chargesheet was issued and a departmental enquiry was initiated and in the enquiry, the charges were found proved against him. In the enquiry report, it has been mentioned that when the statement was recorded by enquiry officer on 16 July 1999, appellant has admitted the allegations made against him but under the principles of natural justice, enquiry was conducted and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant participated in the enquiry. His defence was that in the aforesaid criminal case, he has been acquitted but the question was not whether, he has been convicted or acquitted, the question was whether, he suppressed the information regarding arrest and pendency of the criminal case at the time of submitting aforesaid information in the verification roll. After verification, enquiry was conducted and it was found that he has suppressed the facts and has not supplied the correct information and on that ground terminated his services against which, appellant has filed writ petition.

(3.) SRI N.C.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not the same Charan Singh whose verification roll has been considered and the verification form of some other person namely Charan Singh Gurjar has been considered. The attestation form was not filled by the appellant. He had also not signed over the aforesaid form. He was falsely implicated in the criminal case and ultimately, he has been acquitted from the criminal charges. The aforesaid misconduct is not a major misconduct and the punishment which has been awarded is too severe and if it is found that the charge has been proved against him, some lesser punishment can be awarded to him as the provisions of S. 9 of the Act of 1949 shall not be applicable and under S. 11 of the Act, some minor punishment can be awarded to him.