Jharkhand High Court
Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope vs The Union Of India & Others on 25 September, 2019
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6600 of 2014
Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Others ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kr. Pandey, Advocate.
Mr. M.P. Tirkey, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I. Mr. Bhupal Krishna, A.C. to ASGI M/s Shreesha Sinha, A.C. to ASGI.
---------
09/Dated: 25/09/2019 Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the reliefs as prayed for in para-1 of the writ petition.
Vide Annexure-1, which is order dated 11.09.2014 passed by Commandant, GC, CRPF, Ranchi, pursuant to Sub-Rule [1] of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service [Temporary Service] Rule, 1965, the services of Force No. 135174398 RT/GD Purshotam Gope was terminated and he was allowed to be paid salary for the period of notice.
Vide Annexure-3, which is order dated 12.06.2015 passed by Inspector General, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected taking into consideration that while submitting CRP Form No. 25 at GC, CRPF, Ranchi in column-12, two information pertaining to criminal case pending against the petitioner or his conviction was sought for and in both the columns, petitioner mentioned "No".
Accordingly, the character and verification Roll (CRP-25) was sent to District Magistrate, Gumla for verification of his character and antecedents, which was submitted vide letter dated 20.02.2014 by District Magistrate, Gumla, wherein it is informed that a Case No. 69/2009 dated 27.03.2009 under Sections of 420, 467, 468, 471, 290 & 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 47 (A) of the Excise Act was lodged against the petitioner in Gumla P.S. and Charge Sheet No. 187/2009 dated 15.07.2009 was submitted against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Chapter-VI, which is under the heading "Discipline" and Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1949 which prescribes "Procedure for the Award of Punishment" and submitted that the order of termination in the -2- Force cannot be inflicted without holding departmental inquiry. In this case, the petitioner was terminated from service without giving any show-cause notice. So, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others) and order dated 22.04.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2626 of 2014 (Upender Yadav and Bihari Yadav Vrs. Union of India), in which the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law within four weeks.
Learned ASGI appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and also filed counter affidavit. He referred to the provision of Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which deals with the Period of Service and submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was Probationer and was within three years of service in terms of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and so his services can be terminated giving one month's notice and in the instant case, he has suppressed the fact that he was involved in criminal case and accordingly, power has been exercised.
Learned ASGI also submitted that the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2626 of 2014 reveals that in that case, the application of Rule 16 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 has not been considered by the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to go through the aforesaid Rule and to make submissions before this Court.
List this case on 09.12.2019.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/