ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited in Indo -Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) on 15.7.2007. He was put to basic training at the Primary Training Centre, BTC Bhanu from 6.8.2007 to 28.6.2008. After successfully completing the training, he was posted as Constable (General Duty) in 37th Battalion, ITBP, Panchkula. In the background check of character verification, it was discovered that FIR No. 9 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Pohri, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506 IPC. On receipt of information of the criminal case from the District Administration, a notice was issued to the petitioner to explain himself vide notice No. 1199 dated 30.8.2008. He made answer on 17.9.2007. Not satisfied with the explanation furnished, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.2.2009 as to why his services be not terminated for suppression of facts in the enrollment form to which he filed reply on 19.3.2009 which was also not found satisfactory. The petitioner was dismissed from service in accordance with rules 22 and 17(4) of the Indo -Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 vide order dated 6.4.2009. Aggrieved, he appealed to the Deputy Inspector General, ITBP, Ladakh on 15.4.2009. His appeal was rejected on 7.8.2009 (P -5) for the reason of making false declaration in the application form on 4.6.2009 at the time of recruitment. The petitioner had answered in the negative the two questions at Serial No. 12 of the form stating that he had never been arrested nor had been prosecuted, convicted etc. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the impugned orders dated 6.4.2009 of termination and the order dated 9.8.2009 rejecting his appeal be quashed on the ground that they are harsh, mechanical and have been passed without adopting a judicious approach. The petitioner has explained his case in the present petition in line with the defence taken in the reply to the explanation call, in the show cause notice and in appeal.

(2.) IT is his case that his Uncle (chacha) had lodged the false FIR in 2004 due to misunderstanding between his uncle and his father regarding property. This FIR was lodged by the uncle as a counter blast to a case registered by the petitioners father against his brother. There were two cross FI '. When the occurrence allegedly happened, the petitioner was not at the place of occurrence as he says that he was preparing for his 10th class examination from Government Higher Secondary School, Bhatnawar, Shivpuri. The dispute was resolved between the brothers and settled in 2004 itself on the intervention of friends and relatives. Thereafter both families lived together in the village in harmony. The petitioner, a young boy then remained ignorant of the registration of the FIR and pendency of a criminal case in bona fide belief that the matter stood resolved within the families of both the brothers and they continued living peacefully thereafter. But the case remained pending. It was only on receiving show cause notice that the petitioner came to know of the case and informed his family members of the trouble he had got into for no fault of his. No sooner than the family members of both the sides received information they went to the Court, tendered their respective statements on the basis of which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pohri accepted the compromise and acquitted the respective parties on the basis of the compromise vide order dated 26.2.2009. This order was passed in Case No. 123 of 2008 and cross case No. 525 of 2008. It would be worthwhile recalling that the petitioner had filled in the application form on 4.6.2009 after the judicial order was passed. The petitioner was an accused along with his father in case No. 525 of 2008.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a replication in which he reiterates his stand as were made in the petition. It is re -affirmed that both the cases remained pending in the trial court since no application for compounding the alleged offences was moved by either party and it was understood that the dispute had been settled between the brothers and both the families started living harmoniously with each other.