IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 26.02.2026 SAHIB SINGH ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 29.05.2015 (Annexure P-7), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of probation on the allegation that he had suppressed the fact of involvement in a criminal case at the time of recruitment in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner also seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Central Reserve Police Force for the post of Tradesman - washerman during the recruitment year 2013 – 2014 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner successfully cleared the physical standards test, written examination and the trade test. Upon being found medically fit, he was issued an appointment letter and joined service on 23.06.2014 at Group Centre, Jalandhar.

3. Prior to the appointment of the petitioner, FIR No.139 dated 29.11.2013 came to be registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib under Sections 451, 427, 499, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC. According to the petitioner, the said FIR arose out of a village dispute and political rivalry and no specific role was attributed to him.

4. Subsequently, during verification of antecedents, the respondents formed an opinion that the petitioner had concealed material information regarding the criminal case during the recruitment process. Consequently, a notice dated 29.05.2015 was issued to the petitioner stating that his services would stand terminated upon expiry of one month in terms of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

5. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. During the pendency of the present writ proceedings, the criminal trial arising out of FIR No.139 dated 29.11.2013 has culminated in the acquittal of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.10.2023, has acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

Contentions On behalf of petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner had never suppressed the fact of the criminal case and had clearly disclosed the pendency of the case while filling the verification roll at the time of joining service. Therefore, the very foundation of the impugned order, namely concealment of material information, is factually incorrect.

8. It is further argued that the criminal case against the petitioner arose out of a village dispute and the allegations are general in nature. The petitioner has neither been convicted nor arrested in the said case and the proceedings are still pending trial. Therefore, mere registration of an FIR cannot be treated as a disqualification for public employment.

9. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was permitted to join service after completion of the recruitment process and after scrutiny of his documents. Once the respondents allowed the petitioner to join service, they could not subsequently terminate his services on the same ground.

10. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, to contend that where a candidate has disclosed the pendency of a criminal case, the employer must consider the nature of the offence and other circumstances before taking a decision regarding suitability.

On behalf of respondent-State

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner deliberately con