DINU KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE JAY NARAYAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGA BANDH P.S. PUTKI P.O. PUTKI DISTRICT DHANBAD (JHARKHAND) Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the orders dated 04.10.2012 and 28.01.2013, passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been challenged and prayer has been sought for quashing of the said orders and for reinstatement in services.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was selected for appointment in B.S.F. for the post of Constable (G.D.) by the SEC. in the year 2011 and he was issued call letter to join TC &S, BSF Hazaribagh on 19.03.2012 vide this letter dated 28.02.2012 as is evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner filed Residential Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad vide letter dated 05.03.2011 in the office of the respondents-authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner was allotted B.S.F. Bangalore for undergoing basic training. His attestation form duly filled and also signed by the individual, was then forwarded to the District Collector, Dhanbad, Jharkhand by S.T.C. B.S.F. Bangalore for verification of his character and antecedents. The verification report received from Collectorate Office (Gen. Branch) vide letter dated 16.06.2012 revealed that a criminal case No. 96 of 2006 dated 03.08.2006 was filed against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 448, 379, 504 and 34 I.P.C. in Police Station Putki (Dhanbad). Thereafter, the petitioner was asked by the S.T.C./B.S.F. Bangalore vide letter dated 20.07.2012 to explain the reasons as to why he did not disclose details about filing of criminal case against him in the P.S. Putki in the Enrolment and Attestation forms. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.07.2012, explaining his position. The Respondent No. 2 after considering the verification report received from the Collector office, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) dated 14/16.06.2012 in exercise of power vested in vide Rule 17 of B.S.F. (Amendment) Rule, 2011, issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dismissed the petitioner from services vide order dated 04.10.2012 vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. Then, being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure-7) rejected the appeal.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for redressal of his grievances.