Kancharapu Rajesh vs The Central Industrial Security ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8844 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.5236 OF 2016

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"To issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd & 4th Respondents in passing impugned order terminate the petitioner without notice as CISF Constable in V-15014/ CISF/BCCL/MJR/2016-405 dated 14.1.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, against the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside impugned Order of the 3rd Respondent in V- 15014/CISF/BCCL/MJR/2016-405 dated 14.1.2016 further direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to reinstate the petitioner as CISF Constable and pass such other or further orders may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. Vide proceedings V-15014/CISF/BCCL/MJR/2016-

405 dated 14.01.2016, the service of the petitioner was

terminated by the Senior Commandant, CISF Area BCCL,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand State, exercising the powers under sub-

rule (4) of Rule 26 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules,

2001 (CISF Rules). Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ

Petition came to be filed. After due selection process, the

petitioner was appointed as Central Industrial Security Force

Constable, vide letter No.E-32017/CISF/ChPT/Adm-3/Rectt. of

CT/GD-SSC-2011/2014-185 dated 15.09.2014 and he was

posted as BCCL, Dhanabad Unit at Jharkand State. Vide the

impugned proceedings, the respondent-authorities, without

issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation,

terminated the service of the petitioner herein by way of the

impugned proceedings on the ground that while submitting the

application for the aforesaid post, the petitioner suppressed

about the crime registered against him in Crime No.87 of 2010

for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C.,

which was numbered as C.C.No.84 of 2010 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amadalavasala. On

coming to know about the aforesaid crime at the time of

antecedent verification, the services of the petitioner were

terminated by the impugned proceedings.

3. The contention of the petitioner herein is that without

calling for any explanation and without issuing any show cause

notice, the respondent-authorities terminated the service of the

petitioner herein and prayed to set aside the impugned

proceedings and consequently prayed to reinstate him into

service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar 1

and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and another2 and also the

judgment of the Madras High Court in S.John Christopher v. The

Inspector General of WS, CISF, Mumbai and others 3 for the

proposition that when the offence is a trivial in nature and not

involving moral turpitude, the case of the petitioner can be

considered for reinstatement by setting aside the impugned

order of termination.

(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644

Civil Appeal No(s). 3574 of 2022 dated 02.05.2022 Supreme Court

W.P.No.29183 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2011 dated 28.03.2018 of Madras High Court

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit

that furnishing false information or suppression of any factual

information in the attestation form is liable to be terminated, as

and when it comes to the notice of the employer, at any stage

during the service. It is also the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondents that the District Magistrate,

Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, has sent the antecedents

verification of the petitioner and intimated, vide letter

No.M.L.Dis.189/2015 C4, dated 29.09.2015, that the petitioner

was involved as accused No.1 in a criminal case in Crime No.87

of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323

read with Section 34 I.P.C. of Amadalavalasa Police Station and

the petitioner has deliberately suppressed such factual

information by giving false representation against column No.12

(a) & (b) of the attestation form and thereby the petitioner

committed a clear breach of agreement and rendered himself

disqualify for service, as such, in terms of Rule 26(4) of the CISF

Rules, 2001, the respondent authorities terminated the service of

the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has

not availed the remedy of appeal, which was provided under

Section 9 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and

that the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing

the instant Writ Petition against the impugned order of

termination and that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar's case (2

supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after

considering the judgment of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran

Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya4 and another

popularly known judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and

others5, held that when a criminal case ended in acquittal and

when the offences are trivial in nature and it is considered and

directed the respondents therein for reinstatement of the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the

judgment of the Madras High Court in S.John Christopher's case

(3 supra) for the same proposition, but in the said case, the

petitioner therein mentioned in the attestation form about the

pendency of the criminal case and the case is not ended in clean

acquittal, though the offences are trivial in nature. Learned

(2021) 10 SCC 136

(2016) 8 SCC 471

counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no collusion

between the present complainant and the accused and the police

have also not able to prove the case, as such, the case ended in

acquittal, therefore, it has to be deemed as a 'clean acquittal'

and, hence, prayed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for

reinstatement in view of the aforesaid judgments. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though a

fine was imposed against the petitioner in S.John Christopher's

case (3 supra) in the criminal case and it is not a clean acquittal,

still, it is directed the reinstatement of the petitioner therein and,

therefore, prayed to set aside the termination order and direct

the respondents to reinstate the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would rely on

the judgment of the Patna High Court in Ankush Kumar v. The

Union of India and others6 wherein a learned single Judge of the

Patna High Court framed some guidelines and eventually,

dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein.

(2019) 1 PLJR 343

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is

allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings and the

respondents herein are directed to re-consider the case of the

petitioner on merits, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments

cited by the learned counsel for both sides, and pass appropriate

orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs of the

Writ Petition.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 18.11.2022 siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.5236 OF 2016

Date: 18.11.2022

siva