The judgment established the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice and the Rules of natural justice before passing termination orders, emphasizing the need for fair procedures in administrative actions.

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10th April, 1989 by the Commandant contained in Annexure 1, whereby he has been terminated from service as it was adversely reported upon in the verification roll received from the SSP District Gorakhpur (U.P) in which the individual was reported to have been charged under sections 380 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code vide Case No. 86/85 of Tewaripur Police Station, Gorakhpur (U.P.) and also the order passed by the appellate authority, contained in Annexure 2, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Commandant.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the selection test for recruitment as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force held at Mokamaghat and on being selected was appointed as CT/GD with effect from 3.2.1987 on purely temporary basis. His further case is that while continuing in service as a Constable he participated in All India Competition of Central Reserve Police Force in the group of Wrestler in August, 1988 and was ranked as best Wrestler on all India level. Later the police verification was conducted in regard to his antecedent and the police report conveyed the information that he was an accused alongwith other persons in Case No. 1751 of 1989 of the court of Sri K. Bhattacharya, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in regard to offences punishable under sections 380, 454 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the said case arose out of an altercation between the prosecution. party and Balkeshwar in regard to possession of the house and finally the said case ended in an acquittal of all the accused persons. The prosecution party and the accused persons are agnatic relations. However, by the impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, he was terminated from service on account of suppression of the fact about pendency of criminal case against him. According to the petitioner, there was no suppression of fact by him.

3. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed without complying with even the Rules of natural justice though it casts stigma against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact for such punishment a full dressed departmental proceeding was required to be done under Rule 27 of Chapter 6 of the C.R.P.F. rules. Yet the impugned order has been passed without even complying with the minimum requirement of the Rules of natural justice. In support of this he referred to the statement in paragraph 24 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the police information said to have been received by respondent no. 4 was never communicated to him nor was he enabled any opportunity of showing cause about the correctness or incorrectness thereof.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 in which and paragraph 24 has been answered in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit but it has not been denied that the petitioner was not given any opportunity. In fact it is admitted that there is no provision to give opportunity and issue show cause to a temporary Government servant whose service shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority. According to the case of the said respondents, the petitioner at the time of recruitment had furnished a false/fake information in verification roll and suppressed factual position in regard to his involvement in a Case No. FIR 86/85 under sections 380 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code of Towaripur Police Station, District Gorakhpur (U.P.). As such, his service disqualified under matter of law and no disciplinary proceeding was liable to be initiated against the temporary employee under Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.

5. Mr. Pathak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the verification roll which has been signed by the petitioner in support of his contention t