IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6758 of 2010 1. KAMLESH KUMAR S/O SRI RAM BACHAN PRASAD R/O VILL.- HANSEPUR, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY HOME DEPTT., NEW DELHI 2. THE COMMANDANT (STAFF) O/O DIRECTOR INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE HQR, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GROUP CENTRE, CRPF MOKAMA GHAT, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE COMMANDER DISCIPLINARY OFFICER, GROUP CENTRE CRPF SINDRI JHARKHAND ----------- 4. 21.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India who states that in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 20.5.2010 the D.I.G., C.R.P.F. has not appeared because he is engaged in a function which has been organized to commemorate the memories of Sri Rajiv Gandhi as today is his martyr day. The D.I.G., C.R.P.F. who affirmed counter affidavit in the light of the indulgence allowed by this Court under orders dated 20.4.2010 was called by this Court as the annexures appended with the counter affidavit are so faint that it is difficult to make out the contents of the annexures appended with the counter affidavit more particularly Annexure-B, the Verification Roll submitted by the petitioner at the time of filing of his Application Form on 29.10.2008. The D.I.G. while affirming the affidavit should have been careful to ensure that the annexures appended with the affidavit are legible so as to avoid inconvenience not only to his counsel but also to the Court. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 10th March, 2010 (Annexure-4) passed by the Commandant (Staff) in the office of the D.I.G.P Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat, Patna, whereunder probation of the petitioner who served the Group Centre on the post of Constable (G.D.) has been terminated with reference to sub-rule (1) of Rule- 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). Perusal of the order dated 10.3.2010, Annexure-4 does not indicate the ground on which the probation of the petitioner was terminated and as the order did not contain the ground counsel for the petitioner on 20.4.2010 submitted before this Court that impugned termination order sans reasons appears to be arbitrary and this Court should at least ask the authorities to file counter affidavit indicating reasons for termination of the services of the petitioner. - 2 - 3. This Court although being satisfied that order terminating the probation made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules does not require the authorities to provide reasons in the order yet called upon the counsel for the Union of India to file counter affidavit indicating reasons as to why probation of the petitioner was terminated. By filing the counter affidavit D.I.G. has placed on record the Verification Roll of the petitioner dated 29.10.2008 filled in by the petitioner himself in which it is said that he had submitted incorrect information with reference to Paragraph-12A of the Verification Roll which enjoin upon him to furnish information whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law and in response to such query in the Verification Roll petitioner submitted “No” meaning thereby that he was never arrested/ prosecuted before submitting his Verification Roll. Later, the verification Roll was sent for verification before the District Administration, Nalanda, the native place of the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Nalanda under letter no. 123 dated 18.2.2009 forwarded the information received from the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda that petitioner was once made accused in Chandi (Tharthari) P.S.Case No. 363/2001 dated 16.12.2001 for the offence under Section 384/392 of the Penal Code but was acquitted by the Hilsa Court and the order of acquittal was furnished by the petitioner himself. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner while writing “No” against Column No. 12 (A) of the Verification Roll that he was never arrested, prosecuted submitted a wrong information which was later verified after receiving information from the District Administration and in appreciation of such incorrect information having been furnished by the petitioner in the Verification Roll his probation has been terminated. I do not see any illegality in such termination order. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)