S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) SERVICES of the petitioner, who was constable (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), were terminated through order dated 26.04.1996, served upon him on 22.04.1996, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said order is in the form of notice of termination of service under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. In the said notice, it was mentioned that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served upon him. Thereafter, through order dated 26.04.1996, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, services were terminated w.e.f. 21.05.1996 (A.N.), i.e. from the date of expiry of notice of one month served on the petitioner on 22.04.1996. Petitioner filed a representation/appeal against the said order. I.G.P. Central Sector, CRPF, Lucknow (U.P.) dismissed the appeal through order dated 24.10.1996, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Petitioner was appointed/enlisted on 05.09.1994. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that a criminal case under Sections 323/504, I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner at the time of his appointment/enlistment and petitioner concealed the said fact while applying for appointment. However the said case ended in acquittal in September, 1995. During the course of verification of petitioner's character etc., the D.M. had intimated the fact of pendency/decision of the case, which was forwarded by Additional D.I.G. through his letter dated 09.02.1996. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that due to this material concealment, services were terminated and as petitioner was temporary employee, hence there was no need to hold formal enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Along with the rejoinder affidavit, order of acquittal has been filed. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that criminal case ended in acquittal, however the fact of acquittal is mentioned in the counter affidavit itself. RA-1 is an affidavit filed by the complainant in the criminal case (Case No.10 of 1994) order of acquittal has not been annexed nor date of acquittal has been given. However it is not disputed that criminal case was pending when petitioner applied for appointment and was appointed. Concealment of pendency of a criminal case under whatever provision may be sufficient for termination of service of any employee. Moreover, C.R.P.F. is an uniformed, disciplined service and such concealment is to be taken more seriously in such service. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following authorities in support of his contention: 1.Yogesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 330 2.Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (2) ADJ 605 3.Union of India Vs. Arun Kumar Roy, 1986 UPLBEC 391 (SC) 4.Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709
(3.) THESE authorities fully support the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. In this regard reference may also be made to R. Radha Krishan Vs. D.G. of of Police, AIR 2008 SC 578. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.;