(1.) This writ petition preferred by the original applicant is directed against order dated 22.09.2011 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench at Jammu) (for brevity, the Tribunal). The petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 03.08.2004 and he was facing charges in FIR No. 281/2000 lodged by one Subash Chander. It has come on record that the verification report received by Colonel Commander, HQ 135 Works Engineers C/O 56 APO revealed that he was facing charges under Sections 307/326/34 R.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act. The petitioner also presented a character certificate dated 10.08.2004 which was obtained from SDPO, Aknoor. A regular enquiry was conducted by the Colonel Commander-respondent No. 3 into the irregularities committed by the petitioner in securing appointment in Military Engineering Service. Thereafter the Presiding Officer and Member were appointed as Enquiry Committee under Rule 11 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 1965 Rules). The stand taken by the respondents is that a government is service or had furnished false information or produced false certificate in order to secure appointment, should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or temporary government servant then he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If her has become permanent government servant then enquiry in terms of Rule 14 of 1965 Rules has to be held and if the charges are proved then he should be removed or dismissed from service. It is the further stand of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, which is evident from his order of appointment on the post of Mazdoor and in case he was to be made permanent then his claim for permanent absorption was to be considered in accordance with the Rules. There was no order passed in his favour and he continued to be a temporary employee The petitioner has actually failed to disclose the fact of his involvement in case FIR No. 281/2000 registered under Sections 307/326/34 R.P.C and 4/25 Arms Act. The Tribunal after noticing the aforesaid fact had concluded as under:--
(2.) When the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments are applied to the facts of the present case it is crystal clear to us that a person, who seeks employment by concealing material fact of pendency of criminal case, would not be entitled to appointment particularly in an organization like Military Engineering Service. If such a person has secured appointment by producing a false Character Certificate as conveyed by the verification report then such an employee can be lawfully removed from service by discharging him or by terminating him by an order simplicitor. There is, thus no merit in the petition hence same is dismissed along with accompanying CMA.