ASHOK SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this, Court in W.P.S.No.653/03.

(2.) Short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the petitioner was bona fide resident of dacoity affected area of District Bhind with 5.3.1979 as his date of birth. A report was lodged with the police against various family members of the petitioner including him in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed on 18.6.1994. Case No. 56/94 was registered under Section 452, 323, and 325/34 of IPC and a challan was filed before the court of regular Magistrate (not Special Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice Act 1986). Petitioner was acquitted on 15.12.1999 as revealed in Annexure P3. Prior to acquittal, petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police force in the year 1999 itself. The petitioner was required to furnish certain information for verification roll in the format prescribed under Rule 14 (B) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Petitioner was merely a 10th standard passed boy from rural background. He put a mark of 'x' before Hindi version of Column 12 (a) and put "no" before English version, which is reproduced below: "Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution?" A memorandum dated 18th January 2002 was issued directing thereby an enquiry against the petitioner for the charge of suppression. Statement of article of charge and imputation of article of charge are contained in Annexure P4 as Annexures I and II, which are reproduced below:

(3.) Petitioner in his reply submitted that he was not able to understand the language and gravity of Column 12 of verification roll. It was clearly mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was aged 15 years only at the time of alleged criminal incidence. Moreover, the petitioner having already been acquitted can not be said to have committed any substantial suppression or concealment. An enquiry was conducted by Assistant Commandant. He vide his report dated 22nd March 2002 (Annexure P5) opined that the petitioner was merely 15 years old at the time of the alleged criminal incidence and the contents of the Verification Roll might not have been properly understood by him. He being merely a 10th class passed person from rural background and further on account of already having acquitted, deserves sympathetic treatment. Disciplinary authority on receipt of enquiry report found the charge proved and dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 5th May 2003 (Annexure P2). Appeal preferred against it having been rejected vide order dated 13th Sept. 2003 (Annexure P1). Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was submitted for quashment of Annexures P1 and P2 and for further directions for reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits including back wages. Petition was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of his prosecution. He was found guilty of the charge in the enquiry duly conducted under the rules. Thus, the prayer for dismissal of writ petition was made.