The court emphasized that the punishment should be proportional to the offense, and the suppression of a minor offense, for which the petitioner was acquitted, did not warrant removal from service.

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

1. The writ petitioner was in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit FBP at Farraka. He was appointed by a letter dated 23rd June, 2001.

On 21st April, 2005 he was issued a memorandum of charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, by the appropriate authority. The charge against him was that he had suppressed in his declaration at the time of joining service that a criminal case under Section 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in 1999 was pending against him at the time of his appointment.

2. The petitioner denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority decided to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. By its order dated 1st July, 2005 the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer and a presentation officer. The enquiry officer held the charge to be proved. This was confirmed by the disciplinary authority on 29th October, 2005, by its final order as follows: "reduction of pay by four stages from Rs. 3350/- to Rs. 3050/- in the time scale of pay for a period of four years with effect from the date of issue of final order with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of the period. The reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay."

3. Thereafter the Deputy Inspector General NEZ exercised his powers of suo motu review under Rule 54 (1) (b) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and issued a show cause notice dated 10th February, 2006 to the writ petitioner. In this show cause notice the writ petitioner was asked to explain within 15 days, why the punishment imposed on him should not be enhanced? By his order dated 7th April, 2006 the Deputy Inspector enhanced the punishment to "removal from service".

4. It is very important at this stage to know the nature of the criminal case that was pending against the petitioner. The records say that the case was under Section 427,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 427 deals with mischief causing loss or damage of fifty rupees or upwards. Indulging in the Act of property destruction or undermining the value thereof is defined as mischief in Section 425 of the said Act. Section 504 relates to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. It appears from the decision of the reviewing authority that the alleged acts were done by the petitioner as a result of rivalry between fellow villagers. The Judicial Magistrate District Court, Balia dismissed the complaint against the writ petitioner resulting in his acquittal on 1st June, 2005.

5. At the time of entering service the writ petitioner was required to fill up a form. The form required information to be furnished as to inter alia whether there was any criminal case pending against him at that time. It goes without saying that the purpose of eliciting this information was to ascertain whether the person being taken in had a good moral character and no adverse background.

6. Let us see the law on the subject. In many employments, which includes the employment in question, a candidate or appointee is asked to fill up a form answering questions regarding pendency of criminal case, conviction etc. concerning him or her. The terms and conditions of appointment or the service rules warn that if there is any untruth in the information supplied, or suppression of facts in the information supplied, it would be considered as a major offence for which the punishment may extend to dismissal from service.

Earlier the Supreme Court had taken a very strict view of any mis-declaration made in the application form, particularly those with regard to pendency of criminal proceedings against the candidate. Even if the accused had been acquitted before taking up the employment, the court upheld his punishment in the departmental proceedings. The view was that the court was not concerned with the gravity of the offence or the ultima