IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.01.2025 SUKHVEER ... Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

****

Present: Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anita Balyan, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Challenging the order dated 23.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), whereby the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service was rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Constable/GD on 20.12.2012 in Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter referred to as ‘SSB’) and allotted 60^th Battalion vide FHQ, SSB, New Delhi memorandum No.2/31/12/SSB(SSP)/Rectt(GD)/Pers-II/44821-44823 dated 27.11.2012. On having been selected and appointed to the said post, he was sent for training at RTC SSB, Alwar (Rajasthan). Each recruited candidate was required to submit a ‘form of enrollment’. The same was filled up and submitted by him on 18.03.2013. Paragraph No.12 of the said ‘form of enrollment’ sought information about the criminal proceedings, if any. A candidate was required to declare as to whether he has ever been prosecuted or not, to which, he submitted his answer as “No”, even though the petitioner was an accused in case FIR No.80 dated 28.02.2012 registered under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Mohindergarh on the statement of one Madu Ram. The petitioner was attributed a simple injury with a lathi on the elbow of the injured whereas the injury attracting Section 325 of the IPC was attributed to the co-accused. A compromise had been entered into between the parties and had been placed for consideration and acceptance by the SDJM, Mohindergarh on 01.07.2013. The same was accepted and the offences were permitted to be compounded, in view of the statement of injured/complainant Madu Ram. The petitioner thus stood acquitted of the charges framed against him. However, when the antecedents of the petitioner were got verified from the police, the discrepancy was noticed. The petitioner was alleged to be guilty of concealment of the required information, whereupon a show cause notice was served upon him to explain as to why his services be not terminated on account of such suppression. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply, but on consideration thereof, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 04.11.2013 terminating the services of the petitioner.

The said order was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.2951 of 2014. Vide its judgment dated 22.09.2016, the writ petition was allowed and the order of termination dated 04.11.2013 was set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a fresh speaking order after due consideration of the principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India reported as (2016) 7 JT Page 300. A Single Bench thus specifically noticed that the case of the petitioner fell within the parameters prescribed in paragraph 30(4) of the said judgment but the same were not taken into consideration by the Competent Authority while passing the order of termination of services of the petitioner.

Despite the matter having been remanded, no such order was passed, whereupon the petitioner preferred COCP No.764 of 2017. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, it was apprised by the respondents that the Competent Authority had already passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner on 23.12.2016 and copy thereof was handed over to the petitioner in the contempt proceedings. Hence, instant writ petition has been filed thereafter on receipt of the order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Competent Authority has ordered termination of services of the petitioner on the ground that there had been concealment of vital information, and an incorrect declaration had been made by the p