Satender vs UOI and Others

J.R. Midha, J.—The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 4th August, 2008 and order dated 30th October, 2010 rejecting his appeal against the termination order.

The petitioner was appointed as a cook in CRPF on 2nd 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.

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 Rs.1,000/- u/s 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.