Union Of India & Ors vs Sukhen Chandra Das

Union of India & Ors. ..... Appellants

Versus

Sukhen Chandra Das ..... Respondent

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated

23.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Gauhati Bench at Agartala in Writ Appeal No. 88/2002

dismissing the appeal of the Union of India and Others against

the order dated 01.08.2001 of the learned Single Judge of the

High Court in Civil Rule No. 139/1996.

2

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the writ

petitioner-respondent herein was enrolled as Constable on

08.11.1991 in Central Reserve Police Force (for short `the

CRPF'). Thereafter, the appellants started the process of

verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent

from civil authorities as required under the provisions of the

relevant rules. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector (West

Tripura) by its letter dated 03.06.1994 informed the

appellants that the respondent along with six others was

charge-sheeted by Sonamura Police Station Case No. 91 dated

24.12.1990 for offences under Sections 148/149/380 and

436, IPC. The respondent, at the time of enrolment in CRPF,

did not disclose the said fact in column No. 12 (a) and (b) of

Verification Roll of CRPF [see Rule 14(B)]. On receipt of the

reply from the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, the

Commandant 9th Batallion CRPF vide order dated 23.06.1994

in purported exercise of the power under Rule 5(1) of the

Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965

terminated the services of the respondent.

3

4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority. The IGP N/S, having heard the respondent and

having examined and verified the record, has found no

substance in the defence of the respondent and by reasoned

order dated 12.07.1995 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved

thereby, the respondent preferred Civil Rule No. 139/1996

which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.08.2001

holding that the order of termination of the respondent was

passed on alleged misconduct and the same could not be

treated as an order simplicitor covered by the CCS (Temporary

Services) Rules, 1965. The learned Single Judge, however,

while allowing the writ petition of the respondent, reserved

liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings

against the respondent for alleged misconduct as revealed in

the order of the appellate authority.

5. Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the order of

the learned Single Judge, the Union of India and others filed

Writ Appeal No. 88/2002 which came to be dismissed by the

Division Bench by impugned judgment by holding that the

order of termination was passed on alleged misconduct as a 4

foundation not motive and as such the same cannot be

treated as an order of simplicitor under Rules, 1965. Hence,

the Union of India and others have filed this appeal by special

leave challenging the correctness and validity of the order of

the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent has

remained ex parte.

6. In the absence of the respondent, we have heard the

learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance

perused the entire material on record. It is not in dispute that

in terms of clause 12 (a) of the CRPF [see Rule 14(B]

Verification Roll [Annexure (P-2)] the respondent was under

obligation to inform the appellants in regard to the pendency

of the criminal case against him. The appellants started the

process of verification of character and antecedents of the

respondent in terms of the relevant service rules. The District

Magistrate-cum-Collector informed the Additional DIG, Group

Centre CRPF, Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) by registered post letter

dated 03.06.1994, that as per the report submitted by OIC

Melaghar Police Station, the Police Case No. 91/90 dated

24.12.1990 was registered against the respondent and others 5

under Sections 148/149/380/506 and 436 of the Indian

Penal Code. On receipt of the report, the Commandant 9th BN

CRPF Chandigarh (UT) vide OO No. DV-1/94-EC-I dated

23.6.1994 recorded the following order:-

"In pursuance of the provisions to Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 I hereby terminate the service of No. 911263026 constable Sukhen Chandra Das of this unit with effect from 25.06.1994 AN and direct that he shall be entitled to claim pay and allowances for the period of Notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls."

7. Undisputedly, the above-extracted order was passed by

the competent authority under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary

Service) Rules, 1965, as the respondent was a temporary

employee and was not a confirmed Constable. The record

shows that at the time of enrollment in the CRPF, it is

obligatory upon the candidate to fill up Verification Roll (See

Rule 14(B)) of CRPF [Annexure-P2 (Colly.). Para 3 of the

Verification Roll mandates "if the fact that false information

has been furnished of that there has been suppression of by 6

factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at

any time during the service of a person, his service would be

liable to be terminated." Para 12(a) states that the candidate

has to give the information if he has ever been arrested,

prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined,

convicted by a court of law for any offence/disqualified by any

Public Service Commission from appearing at its

examination/selections or debarred from taking any

examination/rusticated by any University or any other

educational authority/institution. In answer to Para 12(a) of

the Verification Roll submitted by the respondent, he said

"No". In terms of Clause 1.12(a) of the Central Reserve Police

Force Recruitment Manual, 1975 as amended from time to

time, as soon as a man has been enrolled, his character,

antecedents, qualifications and age shall be verified in

accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central

Government from time to time from through the District

Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned or

such other authority as may be deputed by the Central

Government. Sub-para (d) whereof prescribes that if a person 7

is adversely reported upon in the attestation form by the local

authorities, his services will be terminated by giving him one

month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof under CRPF

Rule 16 read with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules,

1965.

8. In the light of the above-stated facts and provisions of

rules, the termination order dated 23.06.1994 was passed by

the Commandant in purported exercise of power under Rule 5

(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) rules, 1965. The order of

the Appellate Authority dated July 12, 1995 marked

[Annexure-P3] reveals that the grievance of the respondent

was that the termination order was served to him without any

show-cause notice of opportunity which would amount to

breach of natural justice. He also contended that a false case

was registered against him in Tripura. The Appellate

Authority in its detailed reasoned order has recorded the

finding that from the police verification report received from

Sonamura Police Station West Tripura it has been established

beyond doubt that a criminal case was registered against the

respondent during December, 1990 which was pending in the 8

court in which six more accused were reported as absconders.

The Appellate Authority in its order concluded that since the

respondent wilfully suppressed the true facts at the time of

filling in the Verification Roll, the termination order recorded

by the Commandant is held to be fully justified and in

conformity with the existing rules and instructions on the

subject.

9. On an independent scrutiny of the relevant documents

on record as discussed above, we are of the considered view

that the order of termination of the respondent recorded by

the competent authority is innocuous on its face and purports

to be an order of discharge in accordance with the terms and

conditions of the appointment of a temporary Government

servant. Such termination is neither punitive nor stigmatic in

nature, nor it is, in any event, actuated with any motive. The

language of the order clearly and plainly shows that it is

termination simplicitor, rightly based under Rule 5 (1) of CCS

(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 during the period when the

respondent was a temporary employee of CRPF and it does not

cast any stigma to the conduct of the respondent. Thus, the 9

finding of the High Court that the order of termination of

services of the respondent will cast stigma and could not have

been recorded unless the respondent is proceeded in the

regular departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct,

in our considered view, cannot be sustained. The decisions

relied upon by the High Court in support of its order are not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

10. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and

order of the High Court dated 23.03.2005 passed by the

Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 88/2002 upholding the

judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated

01.08.2001 in Civil Rule No. 139/1996 is quashed and set

aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to

costs.

........................................J. (R. V. Raveendran)

........................................J. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta) 10

New Delhi, October 15, 2008.