Sandeep Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned CGC for the Union of India.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Commandant 46 Bn, SSB, Mal Bazar, Jalpaigudi by which the petitioner has been terminated from the service from the post of Constable (GD). Subsequently, the petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order of termination which was rejected vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, SSB, Jalpaigudi, West Bengal.

3. Pursuant to Advertisement published in the year 2021, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD), after appearing through the recruitment examination process, result of which was published on 08.11.2022. ON 17.11.2022, the appointment letter was issued. A character certificate dated 25.11.2022 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda stating therein that the name and address of the petitioner was correct and no adverse entry was found against him in Rahui Police Station. Vide order dated 13.02.2023, issued by the Commandant SSB, ATC, SSB Sitamarhi, the petitioner was appointed to the post of GD Constable. Pursuant to the appointment letter dated 17.11.2022, the petitioner reported with relevant documents on 16.12.2022 and filled up the Character Verification Form wherein at Column No. 12B, regarding antecedents of the petitioner, in which the petitioner had mentioned as “No”. Thereafter, the Second-in-Command, Commanding Officer, 46 Bn, SSB, Malbazar, West Bengal, an explanation was sought regarding the Character Verification Form of the petitioner. After receipt of the report dated 27.05.2023, it was pointed out that a case i.e., Rahui P.S. Case No. 125 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 337, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)/(s) of the SC & SC Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act was instituted against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an explanation on 08.08.2023 stating that since petitioner was under the belief upon the wrong advise given by the Advocate that the aforementioned criminal case is disposed based on a compromise. Subsequently, the Training Officer, ATC SSB, Shamshi, Himachal Pradesh vide memo dated 16.08.2023 directed to the petitioner to submit all relevant documents, in compliance thereof, the younger brother of the petitioner on 08.09.2023 submitted all the relevant documents related to aforesaid Rahui P.S. Case No. 125 of 2022.

5. The petitioner joined as Constable (GD), 46 Bn SSB, Malbazar on 18.12.2023.

6. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 01.01.2024 by the Commandant, 53rd Bn SSB, Falakata wherein the petitioner was directed to submit his response within 30 days for furnishing wrong information in Column No. 12B of his verification form. On 29.01.2024, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause wherein the petitioner had categorically submitted that the error was owing to the wrong advise giving by his Advocate that the criminal case has been disposed based on a compromise. Subsequently, another show case notice dated 25.11.2024 was issued by the Commandant 46th Bn SSB Malbazar directed the petitioner to submit his reply as to why his services be not terminated. An application dated 23.12.2024, including all relevant documents related to the criminal case, was submitted by the petitioner explaining the facts and the reasons and the bona fide mistakes committed on his part. On 17.01.2025, the order of termination was issused by the Commandant 46 Bn SSB Malbazar terminating the petitioner from the service under Rule 18 read with Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009 and he was consequently struck off from the strenght of 46 Bn SSB Malbazar on the ground of furnishing wrong information in his verification form. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 29 SSB Rules, 2009 before the Deputy Inspector General, S