IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 29969 of 1998 Between: Tidke Raghunath Gopal Rao, S/o. Gopal Rao, R/o. Mudgal Post, Pathri Tq., Parbhani District, Maharastra State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Dy.Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in terminating the petitioner's service without giving notice and opportunity and without conducting enquiry vide proceedings Force Order No. 196/96 (X/P.564/Inl.Irg/Bt.No.30/SC/2) dated 14/10/1998 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to undergo constable training along with his batch members. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents : MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 29969 of 1998 ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 14th October 1998, passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, South Central Railway, by which, the services of petitioner as a Constable in Railway Protection Force, were terminated. 2. The 2nd respondent issued Employment Notification No.2/96 on 20th November 1996 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Constables in Railway Protection Force of South Central Railway. The petitioner was one of the applicants and he was selected for the said post. He was communicated of his selection by proceedings dated 2nd April 1998 issued in Proceedings No.Con./Rec/HYB/98. In view of his selection, a Police enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, he was also sent for training. When he was undergoing training, his services were terminated on the ground that he has not given correct information at the time of his selection, with regard to his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.45/92 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 324, 337 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC. 3. As the petitioner has already undergone part of the training course, while admitting this writ petition, this Court, by order dated 27th of November 1998, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the training. But however, it is admitted that after completion of training, even in the absence of any further directions by this Court, the petitioner was taken into service by Force Order No.174/99, dated 12/13.08.1999. 4. The only ground on which the services of petitioner are terminated, is that he has not disclosed about his involvement in a criminal case, at the time of his selection. But however, it is not in dispute that a Police enquiry was also conducted after his selection, and before he was sent for training. Although there was a little lapse on the part of the petitioner in not disclosing about the case registered against him at the stage of selections, but however, the fact remains that after completion of training, the petitioner was given posting orders about nine years back and he is being continued as such. Further, the petitioner has filed a copy of order, showing that even in the crime registered against him in Crime No.45/92, he was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him, by a competent criminal Court. In view of the aforesaid subsequent events, the termination order issued against the petitioner is fit to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 14th of October 1998 is set aside. Respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service pursuant to his selection as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, by extending all the benefits of his employment. 6. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th June 2008. ajr To 1 The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Dy.Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.