RANJAN KUMAR PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to assail the order dated 5th May, 1999 passed by the Principal, Railway Protection Force (for short "RPF") Training School, Khargpur (Annexure -5) discharging him from training on the ground that, on verification, his character and antecedent was found to be not satisfactory, as well as the order dated Ist December, 1999 (Annexure -6) calling upon the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.4,721/ - received by him towards stipend during the training period.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the Writ application are as follows : - In pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1996 by the Railway Administration, for filling up the posts of Constables in RPF, the petitioner submitted has application on 16th December, 1996. He was directed to appear provisionally in the physical test on 17th August 1998, viva -voce test on 13th October, 1998 and medical test on 17th December,1998. Having been found eligible he was selected as a recruit for appointment as Constable in the RPF and was appointed by order dated 19th February, 1999. After such appointment the petitioner was directed to attend the training at Khargpur w.e.f. 8th March, 1999. Petitioner complied with the orders and reported at Khargpur and took part in the rigorous training course.

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. Most of the factual aspects are admitted, but then, it is averred that the petitioner had furnished wrong information in the forms submitted by him. He had also executed an agreement certifying that he possessed a good moral character and was not involved in any criminal antecedent. However,in course of police verification, it was found that the petitioner was an accused in G.R. Case No.1021/1995 of the Court of J.M.S.M., Bhadrak and was found guilty under Section 325 I.P.C. and was released under Probation of Offenders Act by executing a bond for Rs.1,000/ -. On coming to know about such fact, the authorities came to the conclusion that as the petitioner did not possess good character and had criminal antecedent, he was not suitable for being appointed as a constable in the RPF. Consequently he was disengaged from training and was directed to refund the entire amount received towards his stipend. It is further contended that as the petitioner was not appointed, no right had accrued upon him.