UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2013 passed in SWP No. 765/2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 with a further direction to the appellants to reinstate the writ petitioner-respondent into service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that writ petitioner-respondent herein, who was Matriculate and in compliance to all eligibility standards laid down for recruitment as Constable General Duty in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter, for short, CRPF), came to be enlisted in the CRPF on 28.11.2005 and was posted in 128 Bn of CRPF. The writ petitioner claims to have performed his duties successfully for almost five years and, as such, was entitled to be declared a substantive appointee in terms of Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The writ petitioner has further claimed that he was enrolled as Constable General Duty in the CRPF by the competent authority after being fully satisfied with regard to his eligibility and physical standards as also the character antecedents. It is further pleaded in the writ petition by the writ petitioner that at the time of his enrollment, the character antecedents were not got verified by the CRPF authorities and the process of verification was only set in motion as late as in the year 2008 when the writ petitioner was asked to fill up the verification rolls. Accordingly, the writ petitioner with the assistance of fellow constable filled up all the columns of verification rolls on 02.06.2008 and submitted the same to the competent authority.

(3.) It appears that upon the submission of verification rolls duly signed by the writ petitioner, the matter was taken up by the CRPF authorities with the District Magistrate, Jammu, who while intimating the verification of character antecedents of the writ petitioner, pointed out that the writ petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 88 of 2004 under Sections 341/323,147 RPC of Police Station Bishnah. It was also intimated by the learned District Magistrate Jammu that upon the challan being produced before the competent court of law, both the parties entered into a compromise and accordingly, challan was compounded. Ultimately, upon verification, it came to the notice of the CRPF authorities that the writ petitioner was booked in FIR No. 88 of 2004, which was registered with Police Station Bishnah on 20.07.2004 for the afore-mentioned offences, but, lateron when the challan was produced before the competent court of law, the same was compounded on compromise by the parties and consequently, the writ petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the order of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah dated 30.07.2005. Although as is apparent from the pleadings of the writ petitioner, which are not disputed by the respondent-Union of India, the writ petitioner stood acquitted before he was enlisted as cons table in CRPF on 28.11.2005. It is also not in dispute that writ petitioner had not procured his appointment as Constable in the CRPF by any misrepresentation or suppression of material information. It is only subsequent to his appointment, the verification rolls were signed by the petitioner in the year 2008 and process of verification was completed in the year 2009. Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, the Commandant-128 Bn, after coming to know of the registration of the case against the writ petitioner and his failure to bring this information to his notice, took it as suppression of material information from him while filling up the verification rolls, issued notice to the writ petitioner on 20.10.2010 intimating him that his services would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date of issuance of the aforesaid order. Vide order impugned dated 19.11.2010, the services of the writ petitioner were ultimately terminated and he was struck off from the rolls of the unit w.e.f. 19.11.2010. It was this order, which was assailed by the writ petitioner through the medium of SWP No. 765 of 2011.