Suppression of material information in job applications, even with subsequent acquittal, justifies termination of employment under temporary service rules, emphasizing the gravity of offenses involved.

ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

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 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 r