IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13109 of 1998 Between: Gajjala Maheswara Reddy, S/o Vasudeva Reddy, R/o. Gonukakilapalli (P) & (V), Veerapanayanipalli Mandal Cuddapah District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Union Of India, Rep. by its Secretary for Home, New Delhi. 2 Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police, Hyderabad. 4 Addl. D.I.G.P., Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the order or No. P. VIII-2/97-Estt-II dt: 10-11-97 of the 4th Respondent which was confirmed by the 3rd Respondent in his Proceedings No.R-XIII-22/97- Estt-3 dt: 7.2.1998 imposing the punishment of Removal from service as arbitrary and disproportion to the charge framed against the petitioner and set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Krishna Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S.S. Varma (ADDL CGSC) The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks Mandamus declaring the order dated 10-11-1997, passed by the fourth respondent in proceedings No.P.VIII-2/97-Estt.II, as confirmed by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 07-12-1998, imposing on him the punishment of removal from service as illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate to the charge framed again him. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable on 31-08-1995 and at the time of appointment, he had filled in verification roll in form No.25 as prescribed under Rule 14 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. While furnishing information in the said verification roll, the petitioner has not stated that a criminal case was registered against him and he was arrested in connection with the said crime on 29-12-1999. When it came to light that a case, vide Cr.No.57/94, was registered against him on the file of P.S., G.R. Palli, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and issued a charge memo. In response to the same, initially the petitioner filed his explanation denying the allegations and stated that there might be yet another person with the same name and that he was not arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime. In view of the said denial, an enquiry was conducted by addressing the District Collector for re-verification of antecedents and character of the petitioner. On re-verification, it was found that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid crime and that he was arrested on 29-12-1994. In the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was removed from service on the proven misconduct that he suppressed his arrest in connection with the said crime. Challenging his removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, who by his order dated 07-12-1998 rejected the said appeal. 3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge framed. With reference to the said argument, it is to be noted that the petitioner is recruited in Central Reserve Police Force, a security force. When he filled in the verification roll at the time of recruitment, he suppressed information and did not disclose that a case in Cr.No.57 of 1994 was registered against him on the file of P.S., G.R. Palli. Though he was arrested on 29-12-1994 and was subsequently released on grant of bail by the competent court of law, in spite of the same, he did not furnish the said information. Even after proceedings were initiated by the respondents on coming to know that the petitioner is an accused in the said criminal case, he disputed the said fact at first instance. But, on re-verification of his antecedents and character when it was affirmed that petitioner is in fact the person against whom the aforesaid crime was registered and not anybody else, he sought to defend himself by stating that he was falsely implicated in the said crime. The very conduct of the petitioner shows that he wantonly suppressed the information with regard to registration of criminal case against him and his arrest on 29-12-1994. Further, pursuant to the appointment of the petitioner into the service, he did not complete the period of probation. Though the respondents were empowered to terminate the petitioner at an earlier point of time, but, however, they gave him a fair opportunity and conducted enquiry. Even in the enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner suppressed information and did not disclose about registration of criminal case against him and his arrest on 29-12-1994. Having regard to the nature of service for which the petitioner was appointed and the wanton suppression of information, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed against him is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. As no other argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no valid ground to interfere with the order of removal passed against the petitioner by the fourth respondent, as confirmed by the third respondent-appellate authority. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. January 21, 2009 MRR