Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

ORDER

¶18r.O.20r.O

¶1The petitioner assails the Appellate order dated 26th September, 2007 issued by the respondent under Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 confirming the order of termination dated 16th April ,2007

¶2The undisputed facts are in a narrow compass. The writ petitioner was enrolled on 1't December, 2006 in the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'for brevity) as a Constable. The respondents took steps for effecting the verification roll of the petitioner in the Form-CRPF 25 which was sent to the District Magistrate, Haridwar, Uttaranchal for verification of his character and antecedents. lt appears that the Civil Police Verification Report was received by the concerned authorities from the Battalion under the cover of communication dated 15th of March, 2OO7 which'stated that the SHO, w.P.(c) 4983/20r.O paqe L of 5 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I Khanpur had informed that as per the records of the Police, a criminal prosecution case No.4912004 under Sections I47 /I4B|I49 /353 1336/307 of IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal and Amendment Act No.49Bl04 Sections 1147l1-4BlL491323130715041506 stood registered at Police Station Khanpur against the petitioner for which charge sheet had already been filed. On this, a view was taken by the respondents that while'filling up Column No.12 (A) & (B) of the verification roll, the petitioner had not disclosed this information and the conclusion was drawn that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the said facts. As such, for concealing the facts, petitioner was served one months notice for termination of his services vide office order dated 16th April , 2007 under the provision of Rule-5(1) of the CCS(TS) Rules-1965. The petitioner's services were accordingly terminated with eftect from 16th May,2007(FN).

¶3The petitioner challenged this order of termination of service by way of preferring an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 26th September, 2OO7.

¶4The only question which arises for consideration in the present matter is as to whether the petitioner was guilty of deliberately concealing the information while filling up Column No.12 (A) & 12(B) of the verification roll. w.P.(c) 4983/20tO J paqe 2 of 5

¶5Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the copy of the First lnformation Report which has been filed in a similar W.P.(C) being No. 1-859120L0 which is listed today. As per this complaint, it relates to an alleged incident which occurred on 30th September,2O04 at 10:30 a.m. at Govardhanpur where some elections relating to the executive .J\ committee of Sadhan Sarkari Samiti were in progress. The petitioner would submit that the complaint.came to be lodged on account of hindrance by some mischievous elements at the place of election.

¶6The petitioner has contended that he was completely unaware of having been falsely implicated in the alleged incident and that he was never arrested ih the matter. In any case, with effect from 1't December, 2006, the petitioner was serving with the respondents. He claims that he learnt about the implication in the criminal case only from the respondents and the impugned orders, As per the writ petitioner, on a further consideration of the matter, the State of Uttranchal has since taken took a decision to withdraw the prosecution and the petitioner stands acquitted from the charge-sheet by an order dated 3'o June, 2OO9 passed by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar. w.P.(c) 4983/20r.O paqe 3 of 5 -a f (r Y 7 . So far as the ignorance about the registration of the case and the implication is concerned, the same is also suggested by the fact that the petitioner has, for the first time, sought bail in the said case after his services were terminated as is manifested from the order dated 23'd April , 2OO7 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand as per the writ petition B. Perusal of the counter-affidavit would show that other than a bald submission that the petitioner had concealed the information with regard to registration of the case in Column 12(A) & L2(B) of the verification roll, there is no consideration of the petitioner's contention that he was unaware of the registration of the case by the respondents. The petitioner's contention to this effect appears to be clearly undisputed. Such being the position, the petitioner could not have been expected to disclose a fact he had no knowledge about. In such background, there is no basis or justification for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately concealed any fact. ln view of the above, it is evident that the impugned order passed in Appeal dated 26th September, 2007, and the order of termination dated 16th April , 2007 are premised on a totally erroneous assumptidn of culpability of the petitioner which is wholly untenable. w.P.(c) 4983/20r.0 paoe 4 of 5 1'\ We The within accordingly direct as follows:-

(i) order of termination dated 16th April, 2OO7 as well as the order dated 26rh September, 2010 issued by the respondent under Rule 5(2) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965; confirming the said order are hereby set aside and quashed .

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the service with immediate effect. order of compliance of the above directions shall a period of eight weeks from today. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. OCTOBER I.8, 2OI.O 'sn' w.P.(c) 4983/20r.0 be passed paqe 5 of 5 J.R. MtDHA, J

$-10 {< IN THE HIGH COURT OF + w.P.(c) 4983I?OLO EX RECTT. AMIT KUMAR Through : VCTSUS UOI AND ORS Through : DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Mr. U. Srivastava, Adv. ..... Respondent Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. t V" CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTTCE G|TA MTTTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE J.R. MTDHA