Per M.M. Kumar, C J.;—

1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 10. 06. 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the claim made by the appellant. It has been held that the order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the respondents terminating his services, did not suffer from any legal infirmity because he suppressed information regarding registration of a FIR wherein he was named as accused. Later on his character and antecedents were verified and it was found that he was one of the accused in case FIR no. 201.1 of 2003 registered under Sections 147, 354 and 323 RFC. The aforesaid information was communicated after verification of character and antecedents by the Inspector General of Police, CID, J&K, Srinagar vide letter No. CID/VB/06/06/8212-8332-Kup dated 13.08.2008. These facts were not disclosed by the appellant while filling up his character and antecedent roll on 26.01.2006 and he concealed the vital information. The order of termination was challenged before the Appellate Author#31;ity and the appeal was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police by holding that due process has been followed by the Commandant 184 Bn before passing the termination order. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from para 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:-

"In the present case as is evident from Verification Roll filled up the petitioner, the petitioner in reply to question regarding his prosecution, arrest etc. at any time before his recruitment gave his answer in negative. The answer furnished by the petitioner on verification was found to be correct. The failure on part of the petitioner to give the correct information amounted to furnishing false information within the meaning of Central Civil Services Rule 5 (1). The respondents No. 3 was thus competent to exercise powers under the aforesaid provision and order termination of the petitioner's service. The acquittal of the petitioner at a subsequent stage would be of no help to the petitioner for the simple reason that what is alleged against the petitioner is not whether he had actually committed an offence alleged against him but whether he has withheld a vital information while filling up the Verification Roll. The petitioner continue to be on temporary Government service on the date the order impugned in the petition was passed and thus his service were liable to be terminated under Rule 5 (1) CCS (TS) once the conditions laid down therein were satisfied. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot draw support from Raj Kumar v. Union of India and ors. 2009 (II) SLJ 594 : 2009 (1) JKJ HC-38, moreso, because the facts of the reported case are markedly distinguishable from the facts of the present case."

2. It is further appropriate to mention that the learned Single Judge has placed firm reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and ors. v. Sukhen Chandra Das (2008) 17 SCC125. The aforesaid judgment was also in respect of a Constable enrolled in CPRF and appears to be directly applicable.

3. Mr. M.A Wani, learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644. According to the learned Counsel the Supreme Court has laid down that offences like 147, 354 and 323 RFC were not to be considered serious offences and its non-disclosure would not disentitle the appellant to continue to hold the post of Constable in CPRF. He has emphasised that reformatory approach should be preferred giving a chance to the appellant to improve himself. Another submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not a probationer and in fact is a confirmed employee. According to him a regular departmental enquiry alone could have resulted in passing of the termination o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document