Termination from service for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents requires the employer to objectively consider special circumstances, nature of the case, and acquittal status, rather than acting in a mechanical or arbitrary manner, ensuring compliance with established guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

The petitioner – a youngster – sought for enrolment to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2017. He was enrolled in the CRPF on 28.12.2017, after completion of the basic training. He was later posted to 228 Battalion CRPF in Sukma District of Chhattisgarh, with effect from 20.05.2019. While he was serving so, the petitioner came to be served with a notice at Ext.P1 dated 07.12.2019, proposing to terminate him from the services. It may straightaway be noticed that, in the afore, no reasons have been recorded for proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner. Later, by Ext.P3 dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner has been terminated from the service of CRPF with effect from 07.01.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal at Ext.P4 against the afore order, essentially pointing out that the termination as above was stigmatic, and there was no actual involvement in any criminal case. The petitioner also pointed out further that, as regards the two criminal cases pending against him, they ended in his acquittal as evidenced by Ext.P7 judgment of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, and Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2069 of 2018, as per which, the charge was quashed. However, the appeal came to be rejected by Ext.P5. Against this order, a further revision petition was preferred before the Director General, CRPF. Simultaneously, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20321 of 2021. By Ext.P9 judgment dated 28.09.2021, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the revision petition to be considered and disposed of, also taking note of the judgments at Ext.P7 and P8 referred to above, as well as the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [2016 (4) KHC 359]. The resultant order is the one at Ext.P10 dated 09.12.2021. By this order, the revision petition presented by the petitioner as above, came to be rejected. It is seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P10, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.T.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents herein.

3. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner, which stood confirmed pursuant to Ext.P10, requires to be interfered or not.

4. Before proceeding further, this Court notices that the petitioner, at the time of filing this writ petition, was only 29 years of age. When he sought for enrolment in the CRPF, he was merely 24 years old – a youngster. The only reason for the termination of the services of the petitioner, as is discernible from the orders referred to above, is that, at the time of joining the Force, he had not declared about the criminal cases, which were pending against him. A reading of the impugned orders would further show that, proceedings were initiated only upon receipt of certain details as regards the antecedents of the petitioner from the District Authorities at Kannur. The communication received from the District Collector has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Ext.R1(a). This communication refers to three criminal cases against the petitioner. It is to be straightaway noticed that, as regards the first criminal case, the District Collector has informed the CRPF authorities that, on enquiry, even the Enquiry Officer learnt that the petitioner is “not involved in this case”, and therefore, his name