IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that employers must consider the nature of criminal charges and acquittals in employment termination cases, particularly emphasizing the discretion to overlook trivial offences and the importance of a clean acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner in this petition prays for the following reliefs:-

"i. By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of certiorari, that the impugned order bearing No. 13Bn/I-E-Resi-dismissal/10-11/16430-46, dated 13-10-2011 be quashed.

ii. By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of certiorari, that the order bearing No. 15919-23, dated 22 June 2018 be quashed.

iii. By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to release the salary and other emoluments of the petitioner with all consequential service benefits."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 01.10.2010 and was posted to 13th Bn Piprakothi (Bihar). The petitioner underwent recruit basic training w.e.f. 01.10.2010 to 14.07.2011 at 44 Bn/TC Gorakhpur (U.P.). The appointment of the petitioner was subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions as prescribed in the offer of appointment. Such terms of appointment, inter alia, included a condition that verification of character and antecedents would be carried out immediately on joining the service from the concerned district administration and in the event of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of enrollment or any facts or statement mentioned by the candidate in the verification form being found false or incorrect or any adverse finding is reported against him, his service shall be liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. Accordingly, the verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner was carried out through District Magistrate, Bandipora (J&K), who, vide his letter No. DMB/VB/2011/177, dated 14th June, 2011 informed the respondents that a case FIR No. 20/2008 under Sections 148, 341 and 323 RPC had been registered against him in the Police Station, Gurez (J&K), which was pending trial before the competent court of law. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice for having furnished false/incorrect information and after receiving explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 with immediate effect.

3. Aggrieved by order dated 13.10.2011, the petitioner filed SWP No. 2401/2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order and judgment dated 06.04.2018 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation justifying his claim for re-consideration of the termination order on the basis of subsequent event, namely, acquittal in the criminal case and seeking consideration in terms of paragraph No. 38.4.1 of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. Representation, if made by the petitioner, was directed to be considered and disposed of within a period of four weeks.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the respondents in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and in terms of the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2018, the same was found devoid of merit and was, accordingly, rejected. It is this order of rejection, which has brought the petitioner yet again to this Court through the medium of instant petition.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

5. Impugned order of consideration dated 22nd June, 2018 passed in compliance with the directions of this Court is assailed on the following grounds:-

i) That the respondents have not correctly appreciated the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), in particular paragraph No. 38.4.1 and, therefore, have erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 22nd June, 2018 is not in conformity with the directions passed by this Court while disposing of SWP No. 2401/2011.

ii) That the respondents have not appreciated that the involvement of the petitioner in FIR No. 20/2008 was with respect to the offences trivial in nature