Non-disclosure of material information or submission of false information by a probationer can be grounds for discontinuing services without holding an enquiry. The employer has the right to terminate services based on the nature of information withheld and subsequent events, such as acquittal from criminal charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged notice No.D-V-1/2013-EC-II-73 dated 06.08.2013, whereby respondent No.4, while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965), terminated services of the petitioner with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the service of the said notice.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that on 25.08.2011, he was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force and was posted in the Unit of Commandant 73rd Bn. CRPF at Bemina Srinagar. It is averred that the petitioner proceeded for earned leave of 30 days with effect from 31.12.2012 to 29.01.2013 for visiting his native place in the State of Jharkhand. While the petitioner was on leave, he was arrested in a criminal case bearing No.34/2011 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 452, 307, 504, 302/34 of IPC registered with Police Station, Karra. Vide order dated 26th April, 2013, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from the date of his detention and the same was extended for a further period of 90 days with effect from 16.06.2013 till finalization of criminal case or departmental enquiry. This was done in terms of order dated 08.08.2013. On 06.08.2013, the impugned notice came to be issued by respondent No.4, whereby services of the petitioner came to be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of one month from the date of service of said notice.

3. According to the petitioner, he was not aware about the pendency of criminal case against him. It has been submitted that the petitioner after appointment joined his duties at Srinagar and when after almost two years, he visited his native village, he came know that a false and concocted case has been filed against him on the basis of which he was taken into custody. It is case of the petitioner that he has not suppressed this fact from the respondents as he was not aware about the same.

4. It seems that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand but in terms of order dated 06.07.2020, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum. It seems that during the intervening period, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges in terms of judgment dated 29th July, 2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khunti.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination on the ground that the same has been issued without complying with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no enquiry was conducted by the respondents prior to the issuance of the said order. It has been further contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct because the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case against him.

6. The respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their rely, the responders have reiterated the facts leading to the termination of services of the petitioner, but they have contended that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the facts relating to his involvement in the criminal case. It has been submitted that the petitioner has secured appointment in CRPF, which is a disciplined force, fraudulently and, as such, the respondents were justified in terminating his services. It has also been contended that because the petitioner had not completed the period of probation, as such, his services were liable to be terminated by taking resort to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, without holding any enquiry. It has been contended that the petitioner did not make any representation against the impugned notice though he could have done so within the notice period.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record produced by the respondents.

8. So far as the