Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:6955] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1330/2006 Ramavatar Son of Shri Prem Singh Jat, R/o Village and Post Bamboli, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Ministry Home Affiars, New Delhi
2. Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna Bihar
3. Addl. D.I.G. Group Center-1St, C.R.P.F., Ajmer Rajasthan
4. Commandant, 159-BN.C.R.P.F., Khonsa, Tirap Arunachal Pradesh ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur with Ms. Disha Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 17/02/2025
1. By way of filing of instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 21.12.2005 by which the petitioner has been terminated from services.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable and at the time of his appointment a criminal case was pending against him and he was acquitted in the said criminal case, when compromise took place between the parties. Counsel submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without conducting any inquiry, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents have violated
[2025:RJ-JP:6955] (2 of 3) [CW-1330/2006] the principles of natural justice and thus, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of joining of the petitioner in service, a criminal case was pending against him before the competent court of law and this fact was not only concealed but also suppressed by giving a false declaration that no criminal case is pending against him.
4. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid declaration given by the petitioner, appointment was offered to him but when police verification was done about the character of the petitioner, this fact came into the notice of the respondent- authorities, and thereafter, the order impugned was passed. Counsel submits that the instant case is a case of suppression and concealment of material fact on the part of the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents were having no other option except to terminate his services.
5. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Love Kush Meena reported in AIR 2021 SC
1610. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
7. Perused the record and the reply submitted by the respondents and the documents annexed therewith. The application form furnished by the petitioner indicates that at the
[2025:RJ-JP:6955] (3 of 3) [CW-1330/2006] time of filing the same, the petitioner has concealed/suppressed the material fact that a criminal case bearing Sessions Case No.31/1/2004 was pending against him before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar for the offences under Sections 147, 323/149 & 325/149. The petitioner was having knowledge about pendency of the aforesaid criminal case but inspite of above, he has not only concealed the above facts but also suppressed the same by making a wrong declaration that no criminal case is pending against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra) has dealt with the issue of concealment and suppression and has categorically held that such incumbent is not liable to be retained in service.
8. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra). This Court finds no valid reason to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /56