- (1.) This petition lays challenge to an order dated 30th March, 2009 made by the respondent No. 2. In terms of the impugned order the enlistment of the petitioner as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.) came to be cancelled consequent to the authorities coming to know of the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No. 31 of 2004 under Sections 376, 341, 323 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 263 of 2006 under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The impugned order records that although the petitioner had been acquitted in the two cases referred to above, since the same amounted to the petitioner having concealed material facts, his appointment was liable to be cancelled. The impugned order on the above premise proceeds to cancel the appointment of the petitioner.
(2.) Aggrieved by the above action, this writ petition came to be filed and this Court while entertaining the same was pleased to pass the following order: "The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his selection vide order dated 6.3.09 on the ground that he has not disclosed the pendency of few criminal cases deliberately in the Declaration Form. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given all the information as required in the Declaration Form, copy of which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. From peruasl of annexure 4, it transpires that it does not contain any information about the character of a candidate and prima facie statement on oath in writ petition appears to be correct. However, this has been disputed by Sri Govind Saran learned counsel appearing for respondent but at this stage he could not produce any material before the Court from which statement on oath can be disbelieved. In view of that learned counsel for the respondent is directed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit whether this was only the declaration from supplied to the petitioner or there were other forms also. Instructions may be sought and Counter affidavit, if any, may be file by 27th July 2009. List on 27th July, 2009. Till 27.7.09 impugned order dated 6.3.09 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) shall not be given effect to."
(3.) A reading of the said interim order discloses that it was contended before this Court that the declaration form did not require the petitioner to give any details with regard to the pendency of criminal cases against him. The Court also based its prima facie view on Annexure 4 to the writ petition which the petitioner contended was the declaration which was filed by him at the time of applying for the post.;