SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Surya Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Singh, Additional Standing Counsel for Central Reserve Police Force.
(2.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Constable (GD), in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 1 -4 -2003. The verification roll in paragraph 12(a) required the petitioner to inform the respondent authorities, as to whether he has ever been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention etc. Para 12(a) and (b) of the Verification Roll is quoted as below: (a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination, selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution. (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is 'Yes' then give details of prosecution, detention fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form. The petitioner replied in negative. In the verification report received from the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide his letter dated 30 -7 -2003, it was reported that a criminal case No. 298 of 1998 under Sections 323, 325, 506, I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner. The case was finalized on 25 -8 -2003 after petitioner's enlistment in CRPF and that he was acquitted. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services may not be terminated for suppression of fact in the Verification Roll. After considering his reply he was issued one month's notice of termination under Rule 5 (1) of Central Government Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The order was served upon the petitioner on 11 -5 -2004 through the Principal RTC -2 CRPF Chennai and his services were terminated on 10 -5 -2004. The appeal preferred to the IGP Central Sector CRPF, Lucknow was rejected on 19 -8 -2004. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside both the orders and for his reinstatement.
(3.) SRI B.D. Madhyan, learned senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner was hardly 15 years old when he was involved in a scuffle in the family where he was accused of assaulting his own uncle, on a dispute relating to domestic animals. It was a minor matter. The petitioner did not intend to give false information. It was a bona fide act to secure employment. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is a rustic villager. He had in the fear not to loose employment, replied to Para 12(a) and (b) in the negative. The criminal case was not serious in nature and that his uncle, in his statement before the Court stated that he did not recognize as to who had given him the lathi blow. The criminal case has since resulted into acquittal. Sri Madhyan submits that in such case the petitioner deserves a benefit of doubt and in any case he should not be penalized for a bona fide act on his part. He has relied upon the judgment in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Secretary, Commissioner, North Eastern Railway, 1997(2) UPLBEC 1201; Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 247 and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2000) 1 ESC 688.;