DEVESH PURAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of notice of termination (Annexure P.2) as well as order of termination dated February 2,2011 (Annexure P.3). In the case at hand, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the reply thereof was also submitted. Thereafter his services were terminated which was challenged by way of filing a CWP No.8738 of 2011. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 18.9.2012 and the impugned order was set aside. Sub-sequently, a review application was filed by the Union of India on the ground that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India is not applicable being the employee of para-military force of the Union of India. The order dated 18.9.2012 was recalled by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Bhagat Ram v. Union of India and others,1981 3 SLR 686 vide order dated 16.8.2013 and the petition was restored to its original number and status.

(2.) Briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (General Duty) and subsequently his services were terminated vide order passed in the month of February 2011 (Annexure P.3). As per provisions of sub rule 4 of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule,1965. The impugned order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to him. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has not been passed by the competent authority. Neither any reason has been mentioned in the notice nor in the termination order regarding terminating the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 2 SCT 610 and Ram Kumar v. State of UP and Ors., 2011 4 SCT 301.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was not a case of simple termination but at the time of submission of application form the material fact with regard to registration of criminal case was concealed. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that had this fact been in the knowledge of the selection committee, he would not have been selected. Moreover, furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information was a good ground for termination of service of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgments rendered in Union of India and others v. Avtar Singh, LPA No.951 of 2010, decided on 2.12.2010, Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and another, 2006 1 SCC 779, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 3 SCC 437 and Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy v. Chillakuru Chandrasekhara Reddy and others, 2003 3 SCC 445 in support of his contentions.