IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3495 of 2006 JANAK KISHORE SINGH SON OF SRI SITARAM SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GULHI KUSHAHA, P.S. SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT BANKA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATANA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE S.P. MUNGER. ----------- 2 27/10/2010 Petitioner came to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (S.I.) under the respondents State. He was even sent for training but during verification of his records it transpired that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. This fact having not disclosed by the petitioner at the time of recruitment led to his termination from service while he was still under training. Thereafter petitioner filed a writ application challenging the order of termination which was interfered by the High Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice was not followed and the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. Order of termination came to be set aside giving liberty to the respondents to proceed in the matter as the case may be. - 2 - Later on it transpired that the petitioner came to be acquitted by the criminal court and even the respondents allowed the petitioner to re-join and continue in service. He is back now again before this Court seeking a direction that he be paid salary for the period of training from 5.9.1995 to 20.12.1996 as well as salary for the period he stood terminated from 21.12.1996 to 1.2.2000. The fact stands that the petitioner was a chargesheeted person and this fact was not disclosed by him at the time of recruitment. Suppression of such a vital fact goes to the root of the appointment because a person charged with an offence cannot be appointed as a government servant for many a reasons. Though technically, the High Court interfered with the order of termination on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the reason for termination of petitioner was cogent and valid reason at the relevant time. It may also be recorded that the petitioner was a probationer at the relevant time and was not a confirmed employee as such. Therefore, whether a detailed enquiry was required to be held or not is another issue which this Court does not want to rake up at this stage. - 3 - The fact being that the petitioner was terminated in the above stated background and came to be reinstated at the intervention of the High Court, that period cannot be treated to be a case of illegal termination entitling the petitioner for benefit of salary which he is claiming. This writ application being misplaced is dismissed. In the opinion of the Court petitioner is not entitled for any payment of salary for the period in question in the above stated background. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)