RAFIKUL ISLAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was selected for appointment as constable in the Railway Protection Force after being declared medically fit by memorandum dated Oct. 11,1993 and while the petitioner was under training in terms of the said appointment his service was terminated by order dated Oct. 19, 1995 because of his involvement in Police case and for suppression of factual information in the attestation form filled up by the petitioner. The criminal case ended in acquittal of the petitioner under Sec. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by judgment and order dated Aug. 22, 1996. Petitioner filed a writ petition being C.O. No. 18128 (W) of 1996 which was decided with a direction upon Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway to consider the representation of the petitioner dated Oct. 19, 1995 by passing a reasoned order upon giving a hearing to the petitioner and allowing him to produce all papers in support of his case. In terms of the said direction of this Court, impugned order was passed by the authority holding that the termination order by the appropriate authority is valid and the said authority did not find any reason to reconsider the matter as there is no material ground for such purpose. Challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Upon considering the materials, it appears that the termination of the petitioner was because of his involvement in Police case and for suppression of factual information in the attestation form filled up by him. Apparently there was no fact finding in respect of the said charges and admittedly, the criminal case ended in petitioner's acquittal. So, out of the two grounds of termination one is no more existing and the other being on charge of suppression of factual information, it requires factual consideration of various things including the nature of disclosure made by the petitioner in the attestation form, his knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case at the relevant point of time and his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case etc. The impugned order appears to have taken into consideration an admission of the petitioner that he failed to mention the police case while applying for the post of constable and it was a bona fide mistake. In such background it requires application of mind of the authority concerned before it exercised its discretion as to the validity of the termination order, taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts. Neither in the original termination order nor in the impugned order, any finding has been recorded in respect of any of the aforesaid items. Even if it is a bona fide mistake, the same requires to be considered, particularly when there is no finding that the mistake was not bona fide and it was an offence making the respondents to exercise the discretion against the petitioner.