Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) A decision of the Kolkata Police dated March 16, 2011 permanently demobilising the petitioner from Home Guard Organisation, Kolkata with immediate effect is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order was passed without any previous show-cause notice. The petitioner was not heard prior to issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case from which, the petitioner was acquitted on January 17, 2011. The impugned order is subsequent to the judgment of the criminal Court dated January 17, 2011. He relies upon (Rafikul Islam v. Union of India,2002 1 CalLJ 541) and (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors, 2011 6 Supreme 23) and submits that, suppression of material fact in the application for appointment, will not visit such applicant with the penal consequence of discharge from service. It is for the appointing authority to verify the antecedents of the applicant. Failure to disclose information is not fatal in service jurisprudence.
(3.) Learned advocate for the State submits that, the petitioner was appointed in March, 2009. Prior to his appointment, the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case relating to charges under Section 493/ 376/ 323/ 307/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code on November 10, 2008 and was enlarged on bail on December 15, 2008. The criminal proceedings was within the knowledge of the petitioner. He did not inform the appointing authority about the pendency of such criminal proceedings prior to the petitioner obtaining the appointment. In such circumstances, the appointing authority is entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner on suppression of material facts. He relies upon (Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2012 8 SCC 748) and (Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 8 SCC 471) in support of his contention.;