Court requires objective assessment in employment terminations based on suppressed criminal history, given the significance of materiality and the employee's subsequent acquittal.

ORDER:

The respondent No.4-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, issued notification, inviting applications for the post of Constable in the year 2010. In pursuance of the notification, the petitioner herein applied for the said post and he was found selected for the said post provisionally as Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F. in Pay Band-I (5200-20200) with other emoluments, vide proceedings No.R.II-1/2010-11-GCH-EC-5, dated 12.03.2011.

2. The petitioner was terminated vide proceedings No.D.II.I/2011- GC.EC.II dated 31.12.2011 with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which the notice is served on, or, as the case may be, tendered to him, on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the fact of his involvement in criminal case while filling up the verification roll and by mentioning “NO” in Column No.12(b). As per the existing roll, suppression of such facts/information in verification roll would be a disqualification and rendered the candidate as unfit in the Government Department.

3. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 31.12.2011, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2- Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, C.R.P.F., Bibuthi Khand, Gomatinagar, Lucknow. In the appeal preferred to the respondent No.2, the petitioner herein has asserted that he was involved in a criminal case, vide Crime No.17 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. of Veeraghattam Police Station, Srikakulam District and he was arraigned as accused and a false complaint was given by neighbours and the accused and the complainant used to fight each other for the petty matters. On 26.03.2010, when one Chinnammadu was cleaning the house premises, there was dispute regarding extension of eaves from the house of the accused, which were got cut at the instance of the complainant and the accused/A1 went to the house of P.W.1 and caught hold of tuft of hair and dashed her head towards cement pail causing bleeding injuries and accused/A2, who is the petitioner herein beat her with stick on her forehead and accused/A3 beat her with hands when P.W.2-Manyam Venkata Laxmi intervened, she was also beaten by them. On filing the charge sheet, a criminal case was registered vide C.C.No.141 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda, and the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and directed to pay an amount of Rs.200/- as fine.

4. The said fact of involvement in criminal case was suppressed by the petitioner. While the petitioner was undergoing basic training at RTC-NMH, said verification Roll along with report of the District Collector was sent to the Principal, RTC-Neemuch, C.R.P.F., Madhya Pradesh by GC, Hyderabad, by a letter No.V.I-3/2011-EC-5-GCH dated 26.11.2011, intimating that the above individual had concealed the facts regarding his involvement in the aforesaid case while filing up the verification Roll and by mentioning “NO” in Column No.12(b).

5. Dissatisfied with the grounds raised by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal, vide Rule 5(2)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 17.07.2012.

Against the said order, the petitioner