Prem Shanker Asopa, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination of his services dt. 28.12.2002 (Annex. 1) as well as the order of the competent authority dt. 29.04.2003 (Annex. 4) whereby the representation has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Sub Inspector/Exe (under training) on probation on 03.02.2002. During the training and period of probation, vide order dt. 28.12.2002 (Annex. 1) his services have been terminated with immediate effect on payment of one month 's salary in lieu of notice on the ground that he is unfit to be retained in Central Industrial Security Force (in short C.I.S.F). The petitioner filed representation against the termination which was rejected by the competent authority on 29.4.2003 (Anx. 4). The petitioner further stated in the writ petition that his services have been terminated without any valid reason and without any notice/opportunity to defend himself. He has further stated that on 7.6.2002 FIR No. 263/2000 was registered against him at Police Station Nayapura, Kota for the offence under Section 3/6 of the Rajasthan Use of Unfair Means in Examination Act and after filing challan in the Court, cognizance of the offence was taken. The charge framed by the Court was admitted by the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner on sentence, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Communal Riot Court, Kota in Criminal Case No. 231/2000 arising out of FIR No. 263/2000 granted benefit of probation to the petitioner and directed to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for one year. The Court asked the petitioner to furnish bond of Rs. 1,000/ - as well as surety bond of the same amount with a further direction that he will not repeat the offence and maintain good behaviour with public and after imposing further condition of presenting himself in the Court on being called the petitioner was released on probation. It was also mentioned in the order dt. 07.08.2000 (Annex. 2) that as per Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1986 proved guilt of the petitioner will have no effect on his character. Therefore, the said order of the criminal Court cannot be made basis for termination of his services. It has also been stated in the writ petition that in case the termination has been based on the said order then it casts stigma and the same is misconduct for which enquiry was necessary.
(3.) THE respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and disclosed the fact that in the attestation form (Annex. R -1) filled in by the petitioner, as against various clauses of Column No. 12 thereof, relating to arrest, prosecution, detention, bound down, fine etc. the petitioner has written 'No ' but on verification, it was found that the petitioner has been prosecuted, convicted and bound down for the offence as aforesaid. Therefore, the warning printed on top of the first page of the attestation form i.e. ''The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government '' was considered by the respondents and it was found that the petitioner has been prosecuted, convicted and bound down also. In reply to para 4 of the writ petition, the respondents have also quoted various clauses of Para 12 of the Attestation Form against which the petitioner had answered 'No '. The same read as under: (a) Have you ever been arrested. (b) Have you ever been prosecuted. (c) Have you ever been kept under detention. (d) Have you ever been bound down. (e) Have you ever been fined by Court of law. (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law for any offence. (g) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at that the time of filling up this attestation form. (emphasis supplied);