The termination of service for failure to disclose a minor criminal case was arbitrary; reinstatement is warranted when the offence does not involve moral turpitude and the employee was acquitted.

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of an Order dated

04.10.2017 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Sashastra Seema Bal ( in short, „ SSB ‟ ), rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement into service. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him to his previous post of Constable (Driver) with all consequential benefits.

Case of the Petitioner Digitally Signed

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the SSB on 12.08.2013, following a rigorous selection process. At the time of recruitment, the petitioner was required to submit a Verification Roll disclosing any criminal cases or legal proceedings against him. The petitioner asserts that he was unaware of the FIR registered against him, and answered the Verification Roll questions in good faith in the negative.

3. During the post-recruitment verification, it was discovered that an FIR No. 287/13 had been registered at Police Station, Madhu Vihar, East District, New Delhi on 25.05.2013, against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, „IPC‟) .

4. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 28.06.2014 was issued by the Commandant 60 th Bn to the petitioner asking him to submit an explanation regarding the non-disclosure of a criminal case against him.

5. The petitioner claims that he became aware of this case only upon receiving court summons in June 2014.

6. The petitioner submitted response to the show cause notice contending therein that he was not aware of the registration of the FIR as he had been informed by the police that the matter had been settled.

He claimed that he had never applied for bail in that case.

7. The respondent no. 4, however, vide order dated 24.11.2014, terminated the service of the petitioner under Rule 18 (iv) of the Digitally Signed Sashtra Seema Bal Rules, 2009 for furnishing wrong information at the time of appointment and wilful concealment of facts.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed representations dated 12.12.2014, 22.03.2015 and 03.03.2016, to contest the termination and to seek reinstatement in service. However, the respondent no. 4, vide Memorandum dated 29.04.2016, informed the petitioner that the DG, SSB has rejected the representation of the petitioner, vide Memorandum dated 05.04.2016, as being devoid of merit.

9. As far as the criminal case registered against the petitioner is concerned, the same was amicably settled in mediation proceedings between the petitioner and the complainant on 18.02.2017 and was allowed to be compounded vide order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

10. Despite the acquittal and the petitioner‟s repeated representations, the respondents declined to reinstate him into service.

11. Aggrieved of termination of service, the petitioner had filed W.P. (C) No. 6534/2016, on 04.07.2016 before this Court, challenging the orders of termination and rejection of representation. This Court, vide its Order dated 24.05.2017, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to re- examine the petitioner‟s case for reinstatement and pass a reasoned and speaking order in light of relevant legal jurisprudence, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Digitally Signed respondents issued the rejection Order dated 04.10.2017, once again denying reinstatement. Aggrieved of which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of the petitioner from service was arbitrary and disproportionate, particularly since the FIR was based on a minor altercation and did not involve any elements of moral turpitude. He further submits that the FIR was settled amicably, and he wa