Honble JHA, CJ.–This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition for quashing the orders by which his services had been terminated.

(2). The appellant was appointed as a Constable (G.D.) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on purely temporary basis on 23.10.2001. On 9.4.2002 his services were terminated under proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He preferred appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Inspector General on 10.9.2002. He then filed review petition before the Director General but that too was dismissed on 1.5.2003. He thereafter filed the writ petition challenging the said orders.

(3). The writ petition was dismissed in limine without even calling upon the respondents to file the reply and as such, the stand of the respondents is not on the record. However, from the appellate order of the Inspector General dated 10.9.2002, it appears that on the date of his appointment the appellant was involved in a criminal case (FIR No. 66/199 of Shyam Nagar Police Station) as an accused under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the challan had been filed on 26.5.1999. The appellant however suppressed the fact that he was facing prosecution. As a matter of fact in Column No. 12 of the application form, he as the candidate was required to furnish information whether he had been prosecuted in any criminal case. He wrote `No against the column. The application form contained warning to the effect that furnishing false information or suppressing relevant fact would be regarded as ineligibility of the candidate rendering the candidate unsuitable for appointment in government service.

(4). The appellant does not dispute that at the time of selection/appointment, the above-said criminal case was pending against him. He took the plea that on 9.11.2000 he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, and though he was convicted under Sections 147 and 452 IPC, he was released on furnishing bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. According to the appellant further, under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 does not suffer any disqualification attaching to a conviction for committing any offence under such law. Thus, according to the appellant, by reason of the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case which ultimately ended in conviction under Sections 147 and 452 IPC, his services could not be terminated. It is also the case of the appellant that the provision of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was wrongly applied for terminating his services as said Rules are not applicable to the members of the CRPF. In any case, it is contended, the appellant was entitled to a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing before his services could be terminated. In support of the contention that non-disclosure of the criminal case could not be a ground to terminate the appellants services, counsel placed reliance on State of Gujarat vs. Anand Acharya @ Bharat Kumar Sadhu, JT 2007(4) SC 124. We do not find any merit in any of the submissions.

(5). The termination of services of appellant, it may at the outset be clarified, was not founded on his conviction in the criminal case and therefore reference to the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is totally misplaced. As indicated above, the services of the appellant were terminated on account of false declaration that he was not involved in any criminal case. A Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2000(2) WLC (Raj.) 400 has held that where the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document