JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Order No. R.XIII-31/2007-NES-ADM-D dated 03.04.2008 confirming the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 10.09.2007 in his Office Order No. P.VIII 1/2007-4G.EC.II and quash the same and direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of central reserve police force as Constable GD with all monetary benefits.)

1. The petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable GD under the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai on 30.12.2005. The governing Regulations are the CRPF Rules, 1955. (‘CPRF Rules’) as well as the 1955/CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 (‘CCS Rules’).

2. After basic training, he was posted on 30.12.2005 as Constable GD at Guwahati Group Centre, thereafter transferred to Meghalaya, onward to Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner applied for Earned Leave (EL) for the period from 11.06.2007 to 09.08.2007 and was sanctioned the same.

3. In the meantime, the concerned authority undertook the verification of the petitioner’s application for employment and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had concealed certain vital information in his application. The information culled was to the effect that charges had been framed as against the petitioner and five others in Mohanur Police Station in Cr. Nos.456 to 461 of 2004.

4. A criminal case had followed and the petitioner, arrayed as 4rth accused, had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal on 08.06.2004 in Crime No.459/04 under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 ('TNP Act'). The aforesaid information had not been disclosed in the petitioner’s application for employment.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, the respondents pressed into service the relevant Rules and in terms of Rule 16 of the CCS Rules, which permits the discharge of employee appointed temporarily on one months' notice, issued a notice of termination dated 27.06.2007.

6. Since the petitioner had been on EL at the time when the notice was ready for dispatch, the same was served upon the petitioner upon his return to duty and proof has been placed in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner had received the notice on 10.08.2007. The order provides for notice of one month upon conclusion of which he would stand automatically discharged.

7. Thus an order of termination came to be passed on 10.09.2007 terminating the service of the petitioner from 11.09.2007, after the expiry of the notice period of one month. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent, which was rejected on 03.04.2008. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh V. Union of India and others ((2016) 8 SCC 471) stating that the offence in question was a trivial one and the non-disclosure of the same in the application would not/should not have led to such disastrous consequences such as dismissal from service.

9. Per contra, Dr.Simon, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents would rely upon the CRPF Rules which provide for the automatic discharge of service in certain situations, including suppression of vital facts in the application for employment, as admitted in the present case. In any event, he would object to the argument that the offence committed by the petitioner was petty in nature.

10. The issue arising from this matter is as to whether and to what extent suppression/non-disclosure of a conviction in a prior criminal case in an application for employment, would impact the employment itself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided guidance in this regard, in the case of Avtar Singh (su