SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 03.03.2016, by which the petitioner has been removed from service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable in CISF 10.01.2013. The petitioner was sent for training and also completed his probation period. A letter was issued by the Assistant Commandant to the DIG, CISF Unit, BCCL informing that the petitioner earlier was involved in a criminal case, though he has been acquitted from all the charges, yet his case has been taken up by the Screening Committee. Some information was required for consideration. The petitioner was served with a letter dated 3rd December, 2013 by which the information were sought for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents. The petitioner submitted that there was a land dispute between the family of the petitioner and others, as a result, prior to joining in service, a case was instituted in which the petitioner was never taken into custody also. He submitted that he was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.2010. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, services of the petitioner was terminated vide letter dated 07.05.2014. As the order of termination was bad and was in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No.2779 of 2014. This Court was pleased to set aside the order of termination and remitted the matter for fresh decision before the authorities with an observation that principles of natural justice must be followed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 12.01.2016 on the same post. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.01.2016, directing him to file a reply to the show cause as to why not his services be terminated. In the show cause notice, it has been mentioned that the petitioner in the attestation form at the time of enrolment in the CISF had declared "NO" against the question "Have you ever been prosecuted?" Thus, the petitioner suppressed material facts, when it was well within the knowledge that the petitioner was prosecuted. Thereafter, vide order dated 3rd March, 2016, on the ground of suppression of factual information and on the ground of furnishing false information, this petitioner was dismissed from service. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter affidavit. They stated that admittedly, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was prosecuted. They brought on record the guidelines and submitted that a candidate is required to declare as to whether he has been arrested, prosecuted or convicted. If the candidate does not disclose the correct fact, then his candidature and appointment can be cancelled. It has been mentioned that the screening committee took a decision and decided that the petitioner is not fit to be kept in service because of suppression of fact.