The termination of an employee's service for suppressing material information must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the acquittal of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders at Annexure 5, 6 and 8 involving dismissal of the petitioner and also seeking a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner being qualified in the rigorous selection process, was appointed as a constable under the administrative control of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Bhubaneswar-opposite party no. 3 w.e.f. 19.5.2003. After his appointment, the petitioner was called upon by the opposite party no. 3 to file a verification report indicating the character and conduct involving himself. Petitioner replied ‘No’ as against the column requiring as to whether any criminal case is pending against him or not. Finding that the petitioner has suppressed pendency of a criminal case against him, the petitioner was terminated from his service by the communication of the order dated 20.5.2004. Finding no indication of the reason of termination, the petitioner attempted to find-out the reason behind the termination and during such verification, the petitioner could able to know that there has been an allegation of suppression of a pendency of a crimination case involving him at the time of filling of necessary form. Following the C.R.P.F. Rules the petitioner preferred an appeal stating therein his innocency, but the appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, E.S. Central Reserve Police Force, C.R.P.F. Kolkata-opposite party no. 2. For the provisions contained therein for revision, the petitioner also preferred a revision against the appeal order dated 4.11.2004. It is alleged that the revision has been rejected mechanically.

3. Assailing the impugned order, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though a criminal case was pending at the time of filing the necessary form but for the vexatious nature of the case, the petitioner could not take the matter seriously. Learned counsel also contended that finding the F.I.R involves false allegations and the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case under no stretch of imagination, it can be construed, a suppression of pendency of a criminal case involving the petitioner on the date of requirement for furnishing of information had an impediment in the petitioner’s getting an employment. Learned counsel also contended that for the harsh decision taking away the service of the petitioner at such age that too the termination of the petitioner taking place within a year of his joining service, there is a serious stigma attached to the petitioner’s career to continue all through his life. Alleging that there has been no proper consideration of the case by the competent authority, the petitioner sought for intervention of this Court by way of this writ petition.

4. Taking this Court to some decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in an unreported decision in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Sukhen Chandra Das decided in Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23875 of 2005 and a reported decision in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the support of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the case of the petitioner at hand, this Court should interfere with the impugned orders by setting aside the same.

5. In his opposition, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and the other opposite parties taking this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties contended that though there is no dispute in the selection of the petitioner as a constable bearing employment no. 031497326 but following the terms and conditions of the appointment the petitioner was given posting on temporary basis subject to verification of his character and the antecedents by the District Magistr