AMIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already dealt with a similar controversy at Srinagar in a writ petition titled Jahangir Ahmad Khanday v. State of J&K and others, being writ petition SWP No. 1811/2011, by a detailed judgment dated 31.08.2012, followed by two judgments at Jammu in writ petition SWP No. 232/2010 titled Zulfakar Ahmad v. State and others), decided on 04.10.2012 and in writ petition SWP No. 2253/2009 titled Naranjan Singh v. State and others, decided on 27.12.2012, though on peculiar similar facts and circumstances involved in those cases, holding that the writ petitions merited acceptance.

(2.) The brief facts of the case at hand are that the petitioner came to be appointed and posted in 128th Bn. of CRPF. It is contended that the petitioner performed his duties for almost five years with dedication and devotion.

(3.) Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that his services came to be terminated because of the fact that he was allegedly involved in a criminal case registered prior to his appointment. The reason of terminating his services is the receipt of an adverse verification report, which revealed the petitioner's involvement in FIR No. 88/2004 at Police Station, Bishnah, under sections 341/323/147 RPC. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the said FIR are false and frivolous. It is submitted further that the said FIR and the offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be made a ground for terminating his services.