Delhi High Court
Satender vs Uoi & Ors. on 27 January, 2012
Author: J.R. Midha
$~
5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.8741/2011
% Date of decision: 27th January, 2012
SATENDER ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Srivastava and
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for
respondent/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J.R. MIDHA, J.
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated
4th August, 2008 and order dated 30th October, 2010 rejecting his
appeal against the termination order.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a cook in CRPF on 2 nd
January, 2007. The information given by the petitioner at the
time of his appointment was sent for verification to the Office of
Superintendent of Police in pursuance to which the District
Magistrate, Bhiwani vide letter dated 22nd May, 2008 reported
that FIR No.229 dated 28th November, 2002 under Sections
147/148/149/323/324/307 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner
in P.S. Sadar and the matter was pending in the Court. On
receipt of the above information, the commandant terminated
the services of the petitioner under the proviso to Rule 5(1) of
Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order
to I.G., CRPF which was rejected vide order dated 30th October,
2010 on the ground that the petitioner concealed the information
relating to the aforesaid criminal case in column 12(a) and (b) of
the form and being a temporary employee, his services were
terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules,
1965. It was also noted that vide judgment dated 14th March,
2007, the Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine
of `1,000/- under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for
a period of six months under Section 323 IPC. The appellate
authority also recorded that the petitioner did not present any
material document or evidence by which it can be said that the
petitioner was not having any information of the case against him
and that he did not conceal any information knowingly.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's termination is in violation of the principles of natural
justice as no enquiry has been held against the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the petitioner challenged his conviction
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and vide order dated
27th January, 2009, the High Court has permitted the parties to
compound the offences. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner concealed the
information relating to the criminal case pending against him in
column 12(a) and (b) at the time of his appointment and the
petitioner has not given any explanation for concealment either
in the appeal before the appellate authority or in this writ
petition.
5. The petitioner being a temporary employee, his services
have been terminated without enquiry under proviso to Rule 5(1)
of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 which
is reproduced hereunder:-
"Rule 5. Termination of Temporary Service
(1)(a) The services of a temporary Government
servant shall be liable to termination at any time
by a notice in writing given either by the
Government servant to the Appointing Authority
or by the Appointing Authority to the
Government servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one
month:
Provided that the service of any such
Government servant may be terminated forthwith
and on such termination, the Government servant
shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the
amount of his pay plus allowances for the period
of the notice at the same rates at which he was
drawing them immediately before the termination
of his services or, as the case may be, for the
period by which such notice falls short of one
month."
6. There is no merit in the writ petition as the petitioner has
admittedly concealed the relevant information relating to the
criminal case pending against him at the time of his appointment.
The petitioner has not given any explanation whatsoever for the
said concealment and, therefore, the department was justified in
terminating the petitioner without enquiry under proviso to Rule
5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules,
1965.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no
grounds to interfere with the decision of the respondents as the
petitioner has failed to make out any illegality, irregularity,
perversity or any jurisdictional error to warrant any interference
by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J
JANUARY 27, 2012
aj
