Delhi High Court
Bhagat Singh Pal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 October, 2004
Author: Mukundakam Sharma
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Gita Mittal
JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working with the respondent as a Constable. The petitioner was selected and was appointed as a Constable in the respondent force, on 11.9.92 and was posted at Group Centre, Neemuch, (M.P.). On 12.10.92, the petitioner was transferred to Jalandhar and joined there on 14.10.92. Vide order dated 12th November, 1993, the service of the petitioner was terminated in exercise of the powers vested under provision to Rule 5 (i) of the CCS Temporary Serices Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner filed this petition praying for quashing of the said order and also for a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
2. After his appointment on 12.10.92 the petitioner was transferred to Jalandhar and he joined there on 17.10.92. He completed his training there and thereafter he was posted in 'E' company. The service of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order dated 12.11.93. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules, the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry and since in the present case no enquiry was held nor opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause before termination of his service, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.
3. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who had drawn our attention to the statements made in the counter affidavit. Original records have also been produced before us. It is stated by him that the service of the petitioner was terminated for giving false information with regard to his state of domicile to the respondent in his verification roll.
4. We have considered the records in the light of the aforesaid submission of the counsel appearing for the parties. Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 lays down certain instructions providing that when a person is enrolled in CRPF, his character and antecedents, connections and age should be verified through the District Magistrate. The verification roll is also in a prescribed format with a warning appended thereto which is provided in the beginning of the verification roll to the following effect:
Furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the verification roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. If the fact that false information has been nurnished or that there has been suspension of any factual information in the verification roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person his services should be liable to be terminated.
5. A candidate is also required to give a certificate at page No.4 of the verification roll to the following effect:-
I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under the government.
6. In para 4 of the said verification roll the petitioner mentioned that he was a resident from his childhood till 1993 at Sainik Colony, Murar, Gwalior (M.P.). He had given the same address in para 2 and 3 of the verification roll. He had also given a certificate as required in the aforesaid format in his verification roll. After submission of the said verification roll, the respondent took necessary steps to get the said information verified through the appropriate authority and accordingly the verification roll duly completed was sent to the District Magistrate, Gwalior M.P.) . The said verification roll was received back by the Additional DIGP, Neemuch, from the District Magistrate, Gwalior (M.P.) vide letter dated 22nd June, 1993. As per the said verification report the petitioner was not found to be a resident of the address given by him in his verification roll. The respondent, however, before taking any action against the petitioner, in terms of the rules and the warning given in the verification roll, asked the petitioner about the correctness of the home address given in his verification roll by enquiring from him through the Commandant-128 Battalion, CRPF. The petitioner at that stage requested for getting the said verification done once again and at his request the Commandant128 Battalion again sent the verification roll to the District Magistrate, Gwalior for verification under his letter dated 8th October, 1993. Although a second verification was not necessary or required to be done yet to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to retain his job and to remove possibility of error a second verification was sought. Consequently, the same was again sent for verification for the second time. However, again by leter dated 1st November, 1993, the District Magistrate, Gwalior intimated that the petitioner was not found residing at the address given in the verification roll.
7. After receipt of the aforesaid verification report, the respondent considered the entire facts of the case in the light of the existing provisions, namely, the warning printed on verification roll and the instructions contained in para 1.12(d) and (e) of Recruitment Manual, 1975, which reads as under:-
If a person is adversely reported upon in the attestation form by the local authorities his services will be terminated by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof under CRPF Rule 16 read with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1955.
8. Rule 16 (a) of CRPF Rules, 1955, which also has a bearing to the facts of the present case, reads as under:-
All members of the force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. During the period of engagement, they shall be liable to be discharged at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority.
9. Reference may also be made to the instructions contained in para 2 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) letter dated 19th May, 1993, which is also applicable to the Central Reserved Police Force and reads as under:-
The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has now been decided that whenever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc. for initial reqruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to source appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his service should be terminated.
10. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the facts as appearing from the records, the respondent issued the impugned letter terminating the service of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the notice period of one month. The said payment could not, however, be handed over to the petitioner as he has not furnished details of his banker so far
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the competent authority. It transpires from the records that even on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the DIGP, CRPF, Jalandhar, to do full justice to the petitioner yet again got his character and antecedents verified from S.P.Bhind (M.P.). A report was received from S.P., Bhind , which also reveals that the petitioner was not the resident of Village-Virakheri, P.S.Rowne, District-Bhind (M.P.). Accordingly, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Special Sector, New Delhi vide order dated 29th March, 1994.
12. The discussions and the facts set out hereinabove would, therefore, clearly reveal that the action against the petitioner had been taken in accordance with the existing provisions of law. The service of petitioner was terminated under the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 read with Government of India instruction No.4 below Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 and Rule 16-A of the CRPF Rules, 1965. It is established form the aforesaid provisions that the service of an individual could be terminated without assigning any reason. On third enquiry being made, same report was received by the respondents that the petitioner was not found to be a resident of the place/address given by him in his verification roll. Therefore, the present case would come within the ambit of furnishing false information by the petitioner. The action taken by the respondents in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 read with para 1.12(d)and (e) of Recruitment Manual 1975 and Rule 16-A of the CRPF Rules, 1965 and the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) letter dated 19th May, 1993, cannot be said to be illegal.
13. The petitioner may, however, collect the salary of one month towards the notice period, which shall be paid by the respondent as and when the petitioner furnishes the particulars of his bank account. Ordered accordingly.
14. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is valid. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.