B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.1.1988 (Annex 1), by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and order dated 3.6.1999 (Annex. 5), by which his appeal has been dismissed.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was recruited on the post of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short, CRPF) in 1987. His services had been terminated vide impugned order dated 20.1.1988 on the ground that he had obtained the employment by misrepresentation. While filling up the application form for the post, every applicant was asked to furnish the particulars as to whether he had ever been implicated in any criminal case. Petitioner filled up the relevant column in negative, and as subsequently, on inquiry while verifying his character, it came in the knowledge of the appointing authority that he had been involved in a Criminal Case No. 42 of 1987, under Sections 279, 337, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, his services were terminated vide order dated 20.1.1988 (Annex. 1). Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal in 1998/asked for reinstatement, which has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 3rd June, 1999 (Annex. 5). Hence this petition.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order of termination could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner had not been involved in a case involving moral turpitude. More so, he has been acquitted in the said case, therefore, the suppression of material information, even if it was done deliberately, did not warrant termination of his services. After acquittal in the said case, his involvement stood washed off, and therefore, it was neither desirable nor permissible to pass the order of termination of his services. More so, the appointing authority did not consider the appeal in correct prospective and dismissed it without giving any reason. As petitioner had been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case, he was entitled for reinstatement. Hence both the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.;