B VENUGOPAL REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Venugopal Reddy was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 30th June, 1986, and was posted at Hyderabad. Therefore, he was deputed to undergo the requisite training for nine months and after completion of the training he was transferred for posting in Punjab under the Commandant, 29 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Fatehabad, Punjab. While he was working here, his services were terminated on 17th August, 1988, exercising powers under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 , by offering him pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. But on an objection raised against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the writ petition was withdrawn on 14th February, 1990, with permission to file a fresh one in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner through the Legal Aid Office of Punjab and Haryana High Court, approached the authorities on 16th March, 1990, for the assistance of an advocate to represent his case as he had no means to engage an Advocate.

(2.) Today, before us, Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as also against the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as neither any charge-sheet nor any show-cause notice preceded by a disciplinary enquiry has been served upon the petitioner, nor was an opportunity of hearing afforded to him.

(3.) In the return filed by the respondents, the factual position has been admitted, but attempt has been made to justify the action of the respondents by stating that services of the petitioner had been terminated as he wilfully suppressed the factual position regarding his involvement in a criminal case prior to his recruitment in the C.R.P.F., which was serious offence. Therefore, there was no discrimination in terminating the services of the petitioner nor was the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice.