V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has rushed to this Court questioning the validity of order dated 14.05.2010 passed by Chief Security Commissioner, Southern Railway, Chennai -3, and further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the Petitioner's completing his training and functioning as Sub -Inspector in Railway Protection Force.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that in the year 2007 recruitment proceedings were undertaken for recruiting Sub -Inspector for Railway Protection Force, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, wherein Petitioner had also applied. Petitioner participated in the selection proceedings, which comprised of physical test conducted in December, 2007, written examination held on 20.04.2008 and interview conducted in January, 2009. All these proceedings were completed in Gorakhpur. Result was published in February 2009, wherein Petitioner was shown to have been duly selected. Information to this effect was issued to the Petitioner vide communication dated 20.03.2009 by Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the Petitioner was directed to report for medical examination before the Railway Doctor and also to complete other formalities, including filling up of attestation form. In Clause 12 of the aforesaid attestation form there existed several questions to which the Petitioner had given answer in negative. On 09.04.2009 order was passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur directing the Petitioner to report for training at Southern Railway, Railway Protection Force Training Centre, Trichurapalli, Tamilnadu for undergoing 11 months' training. It was further stipulated that on completion of training Petitioner would be appointed as Sub -Inspector in Railway Protection Force. In pursuance of order dated 09.04.2009 the Petitioner forthwith joined the training in question. Thereafter, the Principal, Railway Protection Force Training Centre, Trichurapalli, Tamilnadu issued show cause notice to the Petitioner alleging suppression of information in filling up column No. 12 of attestation form and calling for explanation from the Petitioner. In response to the said notice Petitioner submitted his reply on 11.05.2010. On 14.05.2010 an order was passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, Southern Railway, Chennai declaring the Petitioner unfit for Government Service and cancelled his selection. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed in the present case and therein plea has been taken that cause of action for filing present writ petition has arisen at Chennai, as the order impugned has been passed at Chennai, and further it has been contended that while issuing call letter Petitioner was informed that his selection was provisional and his enlistment was subject to satisfactory report from the authorities about his character and antecedents. It has been stated that attestation form was filled up by the Petitioner on 26.03.2009 and it was sent to the District Magistrate of the Petitioner's residential address for verification of character and antecedents, and while verification proceedings were undertaken, it was detected that the Petitioner had been facing criminal case, being case crime No. 1345 of 2007 under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. Police station Cantt. District Bareilly, and therein charge sheet had been filed on 11.03.2008. The Petitioner had suppressed this fact in the information furnished by him. Further reference has been given that as per R.P.F. Rule 52 if verification record of any incumbent is not found suitable, he shall not be appointed as member of the force. Rule 67(2) of the said Rules further provides that if a direct recruit selected for being appointed and has been enrolled as member, he is liable to be discharged at any stage before his formal appointment, if the Chief Security Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing deems it fit to do so in the interest of Force. In the present case Chief Security Commissioner has found the Petitioner unfit in the interest of the force, and in this background, it has been stated that rightful action has been taken after affording due opportunity to the Petitioner, as such no interference should be made.
(3.) TO the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Thereafter supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed.;