The main legal point established is that termination orders must specify reasons and comply with the principles of natural justice. Public orders must be based on the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by additional grounds later.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as RT/GD in Group Centre of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Bhubaneswar, has filed this application seeking to quash order dated 09.11.2010 in Annexure-2, which has been purported to be issued under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 terminating him from service'. by paying one month's notice pay; and further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to reinstate him in service with all consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand; is that the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the opposite parties, participated in the process of selection and having become successful, after undergoing different rigorous tests, was appointed as RT/GD of CRPF, pursuant to which he joined on 18.04.2010. The petitioner thereafter undergone a training conducted by the authority and on successful completion of training, the authority submitted progress report. But all on a sudden, the petitioner was issued with the order of termination from service under proviso to, sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on 09.11.2010 in Annexure-2. Hence this application.

3. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of termination dated 09.11.2010 in Annexure-2 has been issued without assigning any reason and without complying the principles of natural justice. By issuing such order of termination, the petitioner faced a civil and evil consequence, for which the principles of natural justice were required to-be followed. It is further contended that the definition of temporary service as provided under sub-rule (d) of Rule-2 of 1965 Rules, having not been satisfied, the action taken by the authority under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the order so passed by the authority should be quashed.

4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite parties though admitted, that the petitioner was selected and enlisted temporarily as constable (General Duty) on 18.04.2010 by the Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar against the existing vacancy of Western Sector j37 Bn. CRPF and was allotted nine digit Force No. 105043741 and dispatched to Recruit Training Centre, CRPF, Avadi (Tamilnadu) for Basic Training, but contended that in terms of para-3.1 of GOI, MHA,. Dept. of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM No. 180011j9(s)/78-Estt(8) dated 02.07.1982, it was essential to get the character and/antecedents of the candidates verified after his appointment in government service to assess whether he has got any adverse antecedents or not and whether there are any facts about him on records which would render him unsuitable for employment in government job. Accordingly, the verification Roll (CRPF form No. 25) duly filled up by the petitioner was sent to the District Magistrate, Sonepur (Subarnapur) District, Odisha under information to Superintendent of Police, Sonepur (Subarnapur) and in compliance of the same, verification reports of his character and antecedents were received from both the authorities, i.e., S.P. and District Magistrate Sonepur (Subarnapur) on 15.08.2010 and 03.09.2010 respectively. As per the said verification, it is found that the petitioner was involved in Rampur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 06.03.2017 under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/302/34 IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act in. which the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the Court along with other co-accused persons and charge sheet had also been submitted against them. Since the case was sub-judice and the petitioner did not disclose said fact in the verification roll at para No. 12(a) and (b), he was found unsuitable for continuing employment in the government job