THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.878 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order of termination dated 13.3.2004 in proceedings No.P.VIII.1/2004-9-EC/2 of the Commandant-90 Bn, CRPF, wherein the services of the petitioner were terminated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide proceedings dated 10.7.2004. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) with effect from 14.3.2002 in GC Avadi and after completion of basic training, he was posted to 90 Bn., with effect from 17.6.2003. While that being so, vide impugned order dated 13.3.2004, his services were terminated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that though the Primary Authority did not furnish reasons for termination, the Appellate Authority has furnished reasons and those reasons would indicate that some aspersions are made against the petitioner and misconduct was alleged. The learned counsel further states that if any misconduct is alleged against the petitioner, unless and until an enquiry is conducted, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. According to the learned counsel, in this case no enquiry has been conducted before terminating the services of petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by the Primary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. I have perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. It is simply stated in the order dated 13.3.2004 that in pursuance of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the services of the petitioner are terminated. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent-Inspector General of Police, CRPF and the appellate authority passed order dated 10.7.2004 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. While rejecting the case, the appellate authority considered reasons for invoking sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. It was found by the appellate authority that after his appointment and after completion of basic training, the character and antecedents of the petitioner were verified through District Civil authorities and in reply, the Collector, Tirunelvei district vide letter No.K.Dis.D5/20071/03 dated 6.1.2004 intimated that a Criminal Case No.132/2000 under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 IPC was registered against him and eight others in Palavoor Police Station and charge sheet was filed against him in Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor vide STC.No.2044/2000 and the case was taken up for trial on 5.6.2000. It was further mentioned that the character and antecedents of the petitioner are not good and his appointment was not recommended. Based on the report of the District Civil authorities and also considering the aspect that the petitioner suppressed the fact about his involvement in the said case while filling up of Verification Roll, his services were terminated w.e.f. 16.3.2004, which cannot be said to be as arbitrary and illegal. While drawing the attention of the Court to the above observations made by the appellate authority, the learned counsel for petitioner states that for the misconduct committed by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry before terminating his services under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. To support his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision in CHANDRA PRAKASH SHAHI v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS[1] and submitted that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without conducting a proper enquiry. I am afraid, I cannot accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. This is a case of misconduct committed by the petitioner before joining the service. The facts came to light during verification of antecedents by the District Administration. The petitioner was under probation and his very appointment was subject to verification of his antecedents. Therefore, it cannot be said that verification of antecedents reflected in the order passed by the appellate authority amounts to misconduct. The charges made against the petitioner vide Cr.No.132/2000 under Sections 147, 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC are very serious in nature. May be, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, but that itself does not come in the way of respondents in passing the impugned order. Looking from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.3.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.878 of 2005 30.3.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.878 of 2005 Date: 30th March, 2010 Between: P.Muthu Kumar .. Petitioner And The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad & another. .. Respondents [1] (2000) 5 SCC 152