M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order of termination dated 12th December, 2012. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Helper as probationer trainee on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions given in the appointment order was regarding antecedents of the candidates to be verified from the Police and in case of doubtful or unsatisfactory character, services to be terminated without giving notice.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Technical Helper vide order dated 9th April, 2010. He joined the service immediately thereupon and worked with the respondents. In the meanwhile, the character verification was sought from the Police. Therein, pendency of two criminal cases was reported. The petitioner was soon terminated from service due to the pendency of the criminal cases. The order aforesaid has been challenged on the ground that mere pendency of the criminal case does not mean doubtful or unsatisfactory character. Apart from the aforesaid, out of two criminal cases, the petitioner had been acquitted in Criminal Case No.255/2007 much prior to the impugned order of termination. The petitioner has been acquitted even in other case bearing No.626/2007. It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be considered to be doubtful or unsatisfactory character. It is specially when only one case was pending against the petitioner before termination. It was for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 354 IPC.
(3.) The similar controversy came up for consideration before this court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2012 WLC 568 . Therein, referring to the earlier judgments of this court in different cases, the similar issue was decided. The same view was taken by this court in the case of Ashu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2009 WLC 71 . It is not a case where the petitioner had suppressed the fact pertaining to the pendency of the criminal case so as to terminate his services rather none of the candidates were asked to disclose about the pendency of criminal case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order may be set aside. Learned counsel for respondents has contested the case. It is submitted that as per condition no.18 of the order of appointment, service of the petitioner has been terminated.;