- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the respondent no. 8, whereby his selection on the post of constable ( Provincial Armed Constabulary ) has been cancelled.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition is that the petitioner was selected as a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary ( hereinafter referred to as the 'P.A.C.') on 28.8.2006. He joined P.A.C. in 8th Bn. at Bareilly on the same day. While, he was under training at Bareilly, his selection was cancelled by the impugned order dated 17.8.2007 on the sole ground that he has made a false declaration in his application form. In the said application form, he had made a declaration that no criminal case was pending against him. It is noteworthy that one of the columns in the application form was with regard to the pendency of the criminal case. Against the said column, the petitioner categorically mentioned that no criminal case was pending against him at the time of submission of the application. The police verification revealed that a criminal case no. 655 of 2005, under section 323, 504, 324 and 325 IPC was registered against him at the time of submission of application for recruitment.
(3.) APART from the said form, the candidate was required to submit an affidavit also. The said affidavit is a proforma affidavit. Paragraphs 3, 7, 9 and 15 of the affidavit are with regard to the pendency of the cases and the character. The petitioner has sworn the affidavit that no criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner has not only made a false declaration in his application, he has also submitted a false affidavit with regard to the pendency of the case. Sri Vijay Gautam submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice as no show cause notice has been given to him. He further submits that Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations requires that before termination/dismissal, an explanation must be called for from the employee during the probation period. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid Regulation is quoted hereunder ; "541- (i) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be two years except in the following cases: (a) those recruited directly in the Criminal Investigation Department or District Intelligence Staff will be on probation for three years, and (b) those transferred to the Mounted Police will be governed by the directions in paragraph 84 of the Police Regulations.;