Services of a probationer in the CRPF can be terminated by providing one month's notice without assigning reasons under Rule 16 of CRPF Rules and Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, especially if appointment conditions regarding criminal antecedents are violated.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

JUDGMENT

1) Original petitioner, Shabir Ahmad Deedad, filed the present petition, challenging notice of termination bearing No. D.II.I/2008-EC-II dated 13.08.2008. Challenge has also been thrown to order No.D-II-I/08/EC-II dated 15.09.2009, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 11.09.2008. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service, has also been sought.

2) During pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner passed away and, in his place, his wife, namely, Nargis Begum, was substituted as the petitioner.

3) As per case of the original petitioner, he came to be appointed as Constable (GD) in CRPF after undergoing the selection process and, accordingly, appointment order came to be issued in his favour in February 2008. According to the petitioner, he was granted leave with effect from 04.07.2008 to 06.07.2008 and was directed to report back for duty on 07.07.2008. It is contended that when the petitioner proceeded on leave and reached his home, his house was attacked by the militants on 01.07.2008, as a result whereof his father and other family members sustained injuries and his father was hospitalized. In this regard, a report was lodged with the police. It has been submitted that when the petitioner reported back for duty, he was informed that his services have been terminated with effect from 11.09.2008.

4) According to the petitioner, he filed an application before the Commissioner (Adm), CRPF, Kashmir, and narrated the incident with regard to attack on his house by the militants. The Commissioner issued communication dated 08.02.2010 to the petitioner asking him to submit information with regard to FIR No.157/2003, regarding which challan had been produced against him. It has been submitted that the petitioner submitted report of the concerned police station along with an affidavit and sought reconsideration of the order of termination. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges arising out of the FIR No.157/2003 of Police Station, Handwara and, as such, he is entitled to be reinstated. It has also been submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 against the order of his termination, however, the appeal came to be rejected by the said respondent in October, 2010.

5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the ground that he had not willfully absented himself from duty. It has further been contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR wherein he has been acquitted of the charges after a full-dressed trial, therefore, he deserves to be reinstated. It has also been contended that the respondents have not considered the material placed on record, particularly the matter with regard to his acquittal in the criminal case.

6) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply, wherein they have submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned three days casual with effect from 03.07.2008 to 07.07.2008 and he was to report back for duty on 07.07.2008 but he failed to do so and remained absent from duty with effect from 08.07.2008. It is stated that a registered notice dated 10.07