JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 

1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned termination order dated 21/2/09 and impugned order dated 10/8/09, 11/5/10 & 24/8/11, passed by the respondents be quashed and set aside, and further pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back on the post of constable (G.D.) with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner in the interest of justice.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force pursuant to a recruitment advertisement. During the course of his service, a show cause notice dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure-1) was issued against the petitioner alleging non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, against which the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-2).

3. Subsequently, a charge memorandum along with relevant documents was served by Respondent No.5 and a departmental enquiry was conducted under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 21.02.2009, removing the petitioner from the services (Annexure A-3).

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner-

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no deliberate concealment on part of the petitioner, as he was unaware of the alleged incident relating to the year 2001 and no criminal case was pending against him at the time of his appointment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of removal dated 21.02.2009, preferred an appeal before the Competent Authority contending that his defence and explanation had not been properly considered in the departmental enquiry and the said appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 10.08.2009.

5. The petitioner thereafter submitted a revision petition before the office of I.G. CRPF, inter alia, contending that mere involvement in a criminal case prior to joining service, particularly when the same ends in acquittal, could not justify termination. However, the said revision petition was rejected vide order dated 11.05.2010.

6. It is further averred that the adverse action culminating in the order of removal was founded upon alleged negligence on the part of the police authorities at Jhunjhunu, who forwarded two police verification reports along with reference to an FIR dated 18.07.2005, indicating that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and FIR was registered under Sections 341 and 343 Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, as per subsequent communication issued by the concerned police authority vide letter dated 21.10.2008, it was clarified that the criminal case had already been adjudicated on 09.11.2001 and that the petitioner had been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. It is further pleaded that at the time of the alleged incident the petitioner was a juvenile and therefore, no criminal case was pending against him on the date of selection. It is contended that he had truthfully filled the relevant columns of the verification form and was not required to disclose any pending criminal case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order of removal dated 21.02.2009 and the subsequent appellate, revisional and review orders were passed outside the territorial limits of this Court, the same were admittedly communicated to the petitioner at his residential address within the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, part of the cause of action has arisen within this jurisdiction. It is contended that under Article 226(2) of