RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the recruitment drive by the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF), petitioner came to be selected on 3.5.2002 against an existing vacancy of Safai Karamchari under GC CRPF, Jammu, and came to be allotted No. 025071186. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.4.2003 issued by Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF, Jammu, services of the petitioner, in pursuance of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, came to be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the notice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, petitioner availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Inspector General CRPF for setting aside order dated 3.4.2003, but the appellate authority did not take any contrary view and vide order dated 4.7.2003, rejected the appeal. Petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders dated 3.4.2003 and 4.7.2003 in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondents were not justified in taking resort to Central Civil Services (Temporary) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965), as these rules are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. His further case is that his appointment being on substantive basis against a substantive vacancy, it could not be terminated treating him as a temporary employee, while taking resort to the Rules of 1965. It is also stated that petitioner being a member of the Force could be punished only in terms of Section 9, 10 and 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949), and since procedure provided for taking disciplinary action has not been followed, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondents is that as a result of enrolement in the CRPF, petitioner was directed to submit/ fill up the verification roll in CRP Form No. 25. The said form was forwarded to the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu, for verifying the character and antecedents of the petitioner, which was a pre -requisite for any government job. On verification, the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu, vide his letter dated 17.4.2003 intimated that the petitioner was involved in FIR No. 115/ -1 under section 294 RPC registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, and a challan in this regard was produced on 1.8.2001 in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate Kathua, which was still under trial. Further according to respondents, petitioner while furnishing details in the verification roll submitted false information and concealed the fact that he was challaned and a criminal case is pending against him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, This fact came to be revealed only on verification of his character and antecedents by the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu and, therefore, one months notice of termination was served on the petitioner and on completion of the said period of one month, his services stood automatically terminated. Respondents also state that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.4.2003 has rightly been rejected as the petitioner at the time of appointment had suppressed and concealed the fact regarding pendency of criminal case against him.