SHABIR AHMAD MIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner on 10-4-2006 came to be appointed in Central Reserve Police Force, was allotted No. 065349158 CT/ GD and posted with 183 Bn. CRPE The Commandant of the battalion - respondent No. 3 herein on 13th August, 2009 served a notice on the petitioner informing him that an inquiry has been ordered to find out whether the petitioner while filling up his "Application Form" had given false information regarding his non- involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner was required to reply the show-cause notice within 15 days from the date it was served on the petitioner. Alongside show-cause notice a statement of charges was also served on the petitioner, wherein it was reiterated that the petitioner had in para 12(a) of the Verification Roll falsely stated that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. The respondent No. 3 relied upon a report received from Inspector General of Police, CID, J&K, Srinagar, bearing No. CID/VB/OG/ 8212/8332/KUP dated 12-8-2008, wherein it was reported that the petitioner figured as accused in case F.I.R. No. 83 of 2002 u/S. 354/323, RPC, registered at Police Station Kupwara. The petitioner in his reply to the charge denied involvement in the aforementioned case. However, the respondent No. 3 notwithstanding explanation submitted by the petitioner proceeded to act on the report received from Inspector General of Police vide order No. P 8-1/2010-Instt-2/183 dated 11-2-2010 and ordered petitioner's removal from service.

(2.) The petitioner through the medium of instant writ petition seeks quashment of the aforementioned removal order on the grounds taken up in the petition. The writ petition is contested on the ground that the respondent No. 3 has acted on the report received from respondent No. 5 Inspector General of Po lice, CID, J. & K. and grievance, if any, nursed by the petitioner ought to be against respondent No. 5 and not respondent No. 3. It is insisted that the impugned order was issued by an Authority, competent under law to make the order and that no case was made out for setting aside the order. It is reiterated that the petitioner having furnished false information was in terms of the order offering appointment to the petitioner liable to be removed from the service. The respondents deny that the petitioner has any right or cause to maintain the writ petition. The petitioner in his rejoinder has reiterated that he made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 3 stating therein that the allegation of his having been involved in case F.I.R. No. 83 of 2002 u/Ss. 354/323, RPC was devoid of any substance and even his appeal wherein the stand was repeated was dismissed vide Order No. A.XIII-183/2010-EC-3 of July, 2010.

(3.) Heard and considered.