- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Constable in CISF, has approached this Court challenging the following orders:- (i) order dated 11.07.2009 (Annex.1) whereby a penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 34(i-v) and Rule 32 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001; (ii) order dated 02.09.2009 (Annex.2) where the order was amended and petitioner was punished under Rule 34(viii) and Rule 32 of the Rules of 2001 converting the earlier major punishment into minor; (iii) order dated 06.,10.2009 (Annex.3) passed by the Revisional Authority, wherein a fresh departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted; (iv) order dated 20.10.2009 (Annex.4) serving the charge-sheet to the petitioner; (v) order dated 20.10.2009 (Annex.5) appointing Enquiry Officer; (vi) order dated 09.03.2010 (Annex.7) removing petitioner from service; (vii) order dated 23.06.2010 (Annex.9) passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner; (viii) order dated 20/21.12.2010 (Annex.11), by which revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these impugned orders have been passed by the respondents only on account of non-disclosure of the fact of pendency of a criminal case registered against petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 324 of IPC at Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar. The allegation was that the petitioner while filling the form, did not mention specifically about registration of the said criminal case and left the column blank.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every non- disclosure of criminal case in the verification form or application form, is not fatal and the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., [Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011], decided on 21.07.2016, in para 30, has laid down the parameters, which are required to be considered by the appointing authorities for considering each case.;