Ram Ishwar Das Resident Of Village ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 3761 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 6582 of 2010

              Paramjit Singh (Force No. 081320042, Ex Constable/Bugler) S/o Sh.
              Ram Ishwar Das resident of Village Haldari, PS Barara, District
              Ambala (Haryana).                            ...    ...    Petitioner
                                       Versus
              1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
                 Block, New Delhi.
              2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO
                 Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
              3. Commandant 132 Battalion, CRPF, Adityapur, Jamshedpur
                 (Jharkhand).                       ...         ...    Respondents
                                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate

---

13/19.09.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.01.2009 (Annexure- 1) and the order dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure- 3) passed by the Respondent whereby and whereunder the service of the petitioner has been terminated by stigmatic order in utter violation of principles of natural justice by invoking the wrong principle of law and against the instructions and Rules of the Respondent department.

AND For direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefit and his absence from the service may be treated as a continued one without any break."

Argument on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sequence of events is as under:

                DATE                  SUMMARY OF EVENT
                24.09.2005            A criminal case was instituted against the petitioner

on 24.09.2005 under Section 323/325/506/34/279 IPC.

16.01.2006 The petitioner was acquitted by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Ambala.

2008 The petitioner was appointed as Constable in CRPF and was sent for undergoing basic training.

26.01.2009 While on training, the petitioner was served with a

'One Month Notice' for termination from service in the light of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, alleging that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of institution of criminal case.

28.04.2009 The Service of the petitioner was terminated by the Respondent No. 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the petitioner and has made the following submissions:

(i) The impugned action and order is stigmatic in nature and is in violation of circular Order No. 3/93 dated 10.02.1993, wherein and where under it has been clearly mentioned that while applying Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, it must be ensured that in case of suppression of information regarding involvement of the delinquent in a criminal case at the time of his enrolment/appointment, the department is obliged to conduct a departmental enquiry before issuing any termination order and the orders passed should be totally without stigma and even the circumstances and the substance of the order should not indicate any stigma.

(ii) The basis of the termination of the petitioner was the institution/prosecution of a criminal case dated 24.09.2005 under Section 323/325/506/34 of the IPC in which the petitioner was falsely implicated by his neighbours, and after facing the trial the petitioner was duly acquitted.

(iii) The petitioner is governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act and Rules. The provision regarding the termination of service of the temporary employee is provided for in Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The aforesaid rule empowers the appointing authorities to discharge any member of the force at any time within period of three years, from which he is initially enrolled, by giving one month's notice. It is submitted that when provision of termination of service of person enrolled by giving one month's notice has been provided

in the rules itself then invoking of the provisions of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 is bad and illegal in the eye of law. Therefore, the invoking of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 for terminating the service of the petitioner without invoking the provision of Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 is illegal in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 in the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another".

Arguments of the Respondents

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned action or order passed by the respondents. It is submitted that admittedly institution of earlier criminal case was suppressed by the petitioner and necessary consequences has followed. He also submits that the impugned order of punishment is not at all stigmatic. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 193 of 2017 decided on 06.08.2019 in the case of "Rohitash Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Others".

Findings of this Court

7. It is not in dispute that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner faced trial for offence under sections 323/325/506/34/279 of IPC and was also acquitted prior to his induction in CRPF which he suppressed from the respondents. It is not in dispute that even if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, he was required to disclose the same at the time of his induction itself. It is also not in dispute that the suppression came to light in a short span of time while the petitioner was undergoing initial training. A show-cause dated 26.01.2009 under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner to which he responded and thereafter impugned order terminating his service was passed. The impugned order is quoted as under: -

"OFFICE ORDER

No.081320042 RT/Bug. Paramjeet Singh of this unit (Presently under going Basic training at RTC-I Neemuch), who was served Notice for termination from service under the sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, vide this office order No. P.VIII.5/09-EC-II dated 26/1/09 is hereby struck off the strength of this unit wef. 28/04/09 (AN).

The Govt. dues if any, outstanding against him will be recovered/adjusted from the dues payable to him and credited into Govt. Try.

28.04.2009"

8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the same is a simplicitor order of termination and is not at all stigmatic. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner that the impugned order is stigmatic and hence violative of circular Order No. 3/93 dated 10.02.1993 is devoid of any merits, hence rejected.

9. So far as the criminal case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was acquitted prior to furnishing the required information, but admittedly he did not disclose this information which he was required to disclose. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India) (Supra), the criminal case was instituted after the employment notice was issued to the petitioner and thus, at the time he filled the form, no criminal case was instituted or pending against him. The said case was not a case of suppression of any information at the time of filling up the form. The present case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the petitioner had suppressed the information regarding filing of F.I.R against him in which he was acquitted. It is not in dispute that even such information is required to be disclosed so as to enable the respondents to scrutinize the suitability of the applicant. The acquittal in the criminal case prior to filling up the form has no bearing. The fact remains that the petitioner kept the respondents in dark about his involvement in a criminal case by not declaring the same while filling up the CRPF Form 25 (Verification Roll). The present case is a case of wilful material suppression and the petitioner was terminated as per the provisions of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 by issuing a show cause notice and one month's notice period was also provided as per the rules. The aforesaid judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India) (Supra) does not apply to

the facts and circumstances of this case and does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

10. The argument of the petitioner that he is not governed by CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 has been considered by this Court under similar circumstances in W.P.(S) No. 6600 of 2014 (Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope Vs. The Union of India and Ors.) decided on 18.04.2022 wherein the argument of the petitioner has been rejected after considering the provision of the relevant rules. In the said writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6600 of 2014 (supra), it was specifically argued that the petitioner is not governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, as the petitioner was not appointed in temporary service as defined under the said Rules and therefore, the exercise of power under Section 5 (1) of the aforesaid Rule for terminating the services of the petitioner is itself illegal. The said argument was rejected as follows: -

"24........... Rule 16 of CRPF Rules, 1955 clearly provides that all members of the force shall be enrolled for a period of 3 years and they shall be liable to be discharged at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi permanency under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and those not declared quasi permanent shall be continued as temporary government employees. It also provides that those who are temporary shall be liable to be discharged on one month's notice and those quasi permanent shall be liable to discharge on three months' notice in accordance with the said rules [i.e Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965], as amended from time to time.

25. Further, Rule 16(a) of the C.R.P.F Rules, 1955 clearly mentions that all the members of the force shall be enrolled for a period of three years and during this period of engagement, they shall be liable to be discharge at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority, in case of temporary engagement and will be governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. For persons having quasi permanency status the notice period is 3 months. Rule 16 of C.R.P.F Rules 1955 is quoted as under: -

"16. Period of service. - (a) All members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. During this period of engagement, they shall be liable to discharge at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority.

At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi-permanency under the provision of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Those not declared quasi-permanent under the said rules shall be continued as temporary Government employees unless they claim discharge as per Schedule to the Act. Those who are temporary shall be liable to discharge on one month's notice and those who are quasi-permanent shall be liable to discharge on three months' notice in accordance with the said rules, as amended from time to time."

In the present case, the petitioner was recruited and sent for training awaiting verification report and his status as per Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 was a temporary government employee and as per the Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 itself the persons like the petitioner under temporary employment are governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. In view of the aforesaid findings, the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, is devoid of any merit, hence rejected."

11. This Court is of the considered view that the argument of the petitioner that he is not governed by CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 is devoid of any merits. The issue is covered against the petitioner by virtue of the judgement passed in W.P.(S) No. 6600 of 2014 (supra).

12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner and no ground for interference is made out by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/Saurav