THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.29097 of 2008

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely, as per the writ affidavit is that he was provisionally selected for the post of Constable (General Duty) in respondent-Central Reserve Police Force, subject to medical fitness and verification of educational documents. It is his case that verification of character and antecedents was not part of the selection process and therefore seeking character and antecedent verification from the District Magistrate, Khammam is arbitrary. Further, basing on the report furnished by District Magistrate, Khammam vide Letter dated 12.05.2004 conveying adverse remarks stating that two criminal cases vide Crime No.36 of 2002 and 37 of 2002 were registered against the petitioner in connection with eve teasing and outraging modesty of a girl, the respondent No.1-Commandant CRPF issued the termination Notice dated 14.12.2004 specifying one month period for termination of service. Thereafter, the Impugned Order dated

06.01.2005 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that verification of character and antecedents is not at all mentioned in the provisional selection letter of the petitioner. Further, the issuance of termination notice dated 14.12.2004 is bad in law, as the same did not state any reasons for proposing termination of petitioner’s services.

Further, respondent No.3-Addl. Dy.IGP is the competent authority to take action, including issuance of termination notice. However, in the present case, the respondent No.1 who is below in rank to the respondent No.3 issued the termination notice and therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel contends that when respondent No.1 wanted to issue termination order based on an adverse report furnished by District Magistrate, the respondent No.1 is obligated under law to issue notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to persuade respondent No.1 to the effect that such adverse report is not a bar either for appointment or continuing in service. Learned counsel submits that the Show Cause notice, as well as the termination order lacks reasons; therefore, the “impugned order is a termination simplicitor.” Learned counsel further submits that the Disciplinary authority failed to notice the fact of acquittal of petitioner by Lok Adalat based on compromise with the complainant, and that itself discloses that the case filed against the petitioner is false. Learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Appeal and the reasons given by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal are erroneous. Learned counsel relies on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court vide Abhay Jain Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1and Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi

1 (2022) 13 SCC 1

2 (1978) 1 SCC 405

4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent-Central Government, basing on the counter affidavit of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, would contend that the petitioner has concealed the information of his arrest and remand to judicial custody at the time of filling the Forms. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to relevant portions of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:

“3. ……. The appointment of petitioner was purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons thereto. Ex.RT/GD M.A. Akhil filled the verification roll (form No.CRPF-25) regarding Character and Antecedents on 27.03.2003, which was printed in bilingual i.e., in Hindi and English. In the Verification Roll under column No.12(a) i.e., “Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, ke