D.N. Patel, J.:

I.A. No.4642 of 2015

1. This present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 02 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal No. 378 of 2015.

3. I.A. No. 4642 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 378 of 2015

4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6828 of 2013 vide order dated 19th May, 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and, therefore, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice has been given, no chargesheet has been given, no procedure has been followed and hence, the order of termination of services of this appellant dated 31st August, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in:

(a) (2000) 3 SCC 239 &

(b) (2011) 4 SCC 644

On the basis of the aforesaid decisions to be read with Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1965), it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the services of the appellant cannot be terminated without giving any adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and any breach of principle of natural justice. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6828 of 2013 dated 19th May, 2015, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellant was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 2nd May, 2012 and he was on probation and therefore, his services have been terminated during the period of probation vide order dated 31st August, 2013 under proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965 .

8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this appellant was also involved in criminal case which was registered as Criminal Case No. 454 of 2010 at Ballia Police Station (Uttar Pradesh), under Sections 147, 452, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. These facts were suppressed, when he filled up the form on

3. the post of Constable and he get the appointment by playing fraud upon the respondents.

9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the criminal case may resulted into acquittal or conviction, but, for the benefit suppressing a criminal case and that too in a writing, in the form to be filled up by this appellant before getting employment as a Constable tantamounts to fraud played upon the respondents as there is a deliberate suppression of material fact and even otherwise also, during the period of temporary service, as per proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965, the services of this appellant can be brought to an end by the payment of salary of notice period. Thus, it is termination simplicitor and not punitive in nature. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

10. Counsel appearing for respondents is relying upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363. On the basis of this decision, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that it is not material, whether the offence registered against this appellant was a major or a minor, but, the fact remains that he had suppressed the