(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toTo issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction declaring the No.T.V.I/2002-GCH-EC.5 violation of Principles proceedings of the 1st respondent passed in dated 8-9-2002 pending as illegal arbitrary and of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all attendant benefits.

IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 32796 OF 2002

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner for training pending disposal of the WP.

IA NO: 2 OF 2002(WPMP 32797 OF 2002

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the order of the 1st respondent passed in No.T.V.I/2002 - GCH- EC.5 dated 8-9-2002.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased maybe pleased to grant leave for filling counter affidavit in the above Writ petition No. 25965 of 2002.)

1. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings of respondent no.1 passed vide T.V.I/2002-GCH-EC.5, dated 08.09.2002 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as constable in Central Reserve Police Force on 28.08.2001 and he was sent to training in RTC IV, Srinagar and while he was undergoing training, the respondent no.1 issued the impugned proceedings terminating his service. That the petitioner learnt that false implication of the petitioner in two criminal cases, which were ended in acquittal, is the reason for passing the termination orders. That the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry and the said order does not contain any reasons and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit inter alia contending that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.57/2000 under Sections 447 & 427 IPC and in Crime No.84 of 2000 under section 326 read with 34 IPC of Orvacal Police Station. However, the petitioner did not disclose his involvement in the above said cases while filling up Verification Roll, despite clear mention therein that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment and that if it comes to the notice that any false information was furnished or any factual information was suppressed, services would be liable to be terminated. Since the petitioner had suppressed the factual information, his services were terminated without assigning any reason under Rule-5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with CRPF Rule-16(1). In view of the above Rules, the contention of the petitioner regarding violation of principles of natural justice and that the impugned order is bereft of any reason are untenable. The writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal.

4. Heard Ms.Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jupudi VK Yagna Dutt, learned Central Government Counsel.

5. Ms.Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence the same is liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice. She would further contend that mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job and further the power to terminate services shall be used very sparingly and cautiously guided by principles. She would further contend that the offences charged against the petitioner does not involve moral turpitude and as such suppression of involvement of cases, which admittedly were acquitted, would not have any impact on the antecedents and suitability of the petitioner for being appointed in the service. She would further contend that the employer has to take into consideration the nature of offences involved, the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal, the socio-economic strata of the employee, however, the employee, without considering the various aspects passed a blanket order of termination of services on the basis of mere enabling clause in the verification form to do so. She would further contend that the petitioner was too young when the cases were registered against him and that he is a native of faction ridden village where there will be chances of false implication to settle scores would be very high, but the employer, did not at all considered these facts into consideration and instead of giving the petitioner to reform branding him a criminal passed the impugned orders. She finally contended that the petitioner was very young when he was implicated in false cases and the nature of offences being petty in nature and does not involve either moral turpitude , cheating, misappropriation etc. or serious or heinous offence and since the petitioner had already been acquitted of the cases by the time of filling the verification forms, the employer must necessarily have ignore lapse of suppression of submitting the information regarding acquittal of cases and should not have passed the impugned orders. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

                  In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India((2016) 8 SCC 471) and RavindraKumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others((2024) 5 Supreme Court Cases 264).

6. On the other hand, Sri Jupudi VK Yagna Dutt, learned Central Government Counsel, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit would submit that since the petitioner suppressed the factual information in verification roll regarding registration of two (02) criminal cases against him, he was terminated from service as empowered by Rule-5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with CRPF Rule-16(1). He would further contend that as the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were not petty offences, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case. He would further contend that no notice is required to be issued to the petitioner as per CCs (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and thus there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner and further acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases cannot at all be a mitigating factor and the same would not absolve him of the responsibility of furnishing all the factual information in verification roll. He would further contend that the information given by the petitioner as against column no.12, as ‘No’ would clearly be a material suppression of the factual information regarding his prosecution in two criminal cases and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in service. He would finally contend that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity moreover violation of principles of natural justice in terminating the service of the petitioner. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner being a temporary employee, is governed by The Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.

9. There is no dispute regarding the fact that two (02) criminal cases were registered against the petitioner viz., Crime No.57 of 2000 under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and Crime No.84 of 2000 under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. of Orvacal Police Station. It is also not in dispute that both the cases were ended in acquittal prior to enlistment of the petitioner in CRPF.

10. Column No.12 of the Verification Roll requires information as to whether the applicant has ever been arrested, prosecuted and any case is pending against him in any court of law. The information furnished by the petitioner as against the above column is ‘No’.

11. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suppression of material information regarding involvement of petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job and the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

12. In the instant case, the offences registered against the petitioner are not petty kind of offences. The cases registered against the petitioner were for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC i.e. trespass and causing damage to the property and under Section 326 i.e. causing severe injury with deadly weapon. Therefore, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to be facts of the case on hand. No doubt, the petitioner was acquitted of the two crimes, however, that cannot at all be taken as a mitigating circumstance entitling the petitioner to suppress the information regarding registration of crimes against him.

13. It is not at all the case of the petitioner that there is violation of any procedure contemplated under Rule-5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, which prescribes procedure for termination of temporary service.

14. In the above view of the matter, considering the nature of offences of the crimes registered against the petitioner and the length of time elapsed since his termination, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.