WP(C) 2208/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr C Baruah, l earned Central Govt. counsel. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against an order dated 6. 3.2007 by which the petitioner has been removed from service. The said removal f ollowed a full fledged departmental enquiry held against the petitioner under th e provisions of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rul es, 1965 read with the relevant provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force R ules, 1949. 3. The facts are indeed long and only what is essential is being re cited hereinunder. The petitioner joined service in the Central Reserve Police Forc e (CRPF) as a Constable on 24.9.94. While he was at home on his annual leave, in the month of June, 1996, he was arrested by the police of Hajo Police Station i n connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 28/92 (corresponding to GR Case No. 32/92). The aforesaid arrest of the petitioner was on the ground that he had not appear ed before the Court in the course of the trial of the GR Case. As the warrant of arrest issued by the Court was sent to the CRPF authority for execution, the sa id authority could come to know about the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner only on receipt of the warrant though the case was registered in the year 1992 i.e. before the petitioner had joined service. 4. On 26.8.96, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences alleged in GR Case No. 32/92 and sentenced him accordingly. In the aforesaid situation, by order dated 26.9.96, the petitioner was placed under su spension and, thereafter, on 15.10.96, the petitioner was dismissed from service . The said dismissal was made under the relevant provisions of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 as well as the Central R eserve Police Force Rules, 1949 which permitted the disciplinary authority to di spense with an enquiry in case a member of the Force is sought to be proceeded o n the ground of his conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner filed his stat utory appeal against the order of dismissal which was rejected by the Commandant of the Battalion by order dated 4.8.97. In between, the appeal filed by the pet itioner against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 26.8.96 was allowe d by the learned Sessions Jude on 31.3.97. As notwithstanding the acquittal of t he petitioner as ordered by the learned Appellate Court his representation for r e-instatement in service was rejected by the order dated 4.8.97, the petitioner moved this Court by instituting a writ proceeding registered and numbered as Civ il Rule No. 541/98. The said writ petition was decided in favour of the petition er by the order dated 25.11.99 on the principal ground that with the acquittal o f the petitioner by the Appellate Court the basis of the order of dismissal date d 15.10.96 had ceased to exist. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 25.11.99 passed by this Court in Civ il Rule No. 541/98, the petitioner was re-instated in service. However, on 23.8. 2001, a Memorandum of Charges was brought against the petitioner alleging that h e had not informed the CRPF authority about the pendency of the criminal case ag ainst him at the time of his entry into service. The aforesaid Memorandum of Cha rges dated 23.8.2001 came to be challenged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7060/2 001 primarily on the ground that the charge levelled against the petitioner had already been adjudicated upon by this Court in Civil Rule No. 541/98 and, theref ore, the said charge could not be the basis of a fresh round of disciplinary pro ceeding against the petitioner. WP(C) No. 7060/2001 was dismissed for non-prosec ution on 30.1.2007. With the dismissal of the said writ petition in the aforesai d manner the bar imposed by the interim order passed therein with regard to the further proceedings of enquiry against the petitioner stood removed. Consequent ly, the enquiry was completed and by the order dated 6.3.2007 the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved, the present writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2208/2007 has been filed. In the meantime, WP(C) No. 706 0/2001 came to be restored to its original number. However, by order dated 29.10 .2009 the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 7060/2001 came to be closed on the g round that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. WP(C) No. 2208 /2007 would take care of the issues arising in the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 7060/2001. 6. Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in Civil Rule No. 5 41/98 it has been pointed out that in addition to the ground of conviction of th e petitioner in the criminal case, the alleged suppression of the facts regardin g the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner was an additional gro und for imposition of the penalty of dismissal by order dated 15.10.96. Referrin g to the said affidavit in Civil Rule No. 541/98 which has been enclosed to the present writ petition and the order dated 25.11.99 disposing of the said writ pe tition, Dr. Ahmed has contended that the issue raised in the Memorandum of Charg es dated 23.8.2001 stands foreclosed by the proceedings in Civil Rule No. 541/98 . Therefore, according to Dr. Ahmed, the conduct of the departmental proceeding on the basis of the charge contained in the Memorandum of Charges dated 23.8.200 1 is legally impermissible. Consequently, the punishment imposed by the order da ted 6.3.2007 is non-est in law. Additionally, Dr. Ahmed has submitted that the allegation of suppression made in the Memorandum of Charges dated 23.8.2001 woul d have no legs to sand considering the fact that the criminal case was lodged tw o years before the entry of the petitioner into service and at no point of time he was arrested in connection with the said case. 7. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner have been con troverted by Mr C Baruah, learned Central Govt. counsel. Referring to the affida vit filed in Civil Rule No. 541/98 and the order dated 25.11.99 passed in the sa id writ petition, Mr Baruah has contended that from the said affidavit as well a s the aforesaid order of the Court it does not transpire that the dismissal of t he petitioner by order dated 15.10.96 was on the ground of suppression of materi al facts at the time of his entry into service. Rather, according to the learned Central Govt. counsel, the said dismissal was solely on the basis of the convic tion of the petitioner in the criminal case. The learned Central Govt. counsel h as further submitted that it is not correct that the petitioner is not guilty of suppression of material facts, inasmuch as, the service and character roll main tained by the department would go to show that against the relevant columns seek ing information about the arrest of an intending recruit as well as the pendency of any case against him the answer of the petitioner had been in the negative, whereas as a matter of fact, at the time of the petitioner’s entry into service there was a criminal case pending against him. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advance d by the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the pleadings con tained in Civil Rule No. 541/98; the order dated 25.11.99 passed therein as well as the original records placed before the Court by the learned Central Govt. co unsel. 9. The subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding against the p etitioner initiated by the Charge Memo dated 23.8.2001 is the alleged act of the petitioner in concealing/ not revealing the fact that there was a criminal case i.e. GR Case No. 32/92 pending against him at the time of his entry into servic e. A reading of the affidavit filed by the respondents in Civil Rule No. 341/98, particularly para 5 thereof, clearly indicates that the sole basis of the petit ioner’s dismissal from service was his conviction in the criminal case. The fact s regarding suppression of the pendency of the criminal case and the arrest of t he petitioner in connection with the same are by way of recital of facts conside red to be relevant by the respondents. Nowhere in the said affidavit there is a ny mention that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was on the basis of the aforesaid facts. A reading of the order dated 25.11.99 disposing of Civil R ule No. 541/98 also would clearly indicate that in the said round of litigation the Court had no occasion to consider the validity of the aforesaid allegations levelled against the petitioner in the Charge Memo dated 23.8.2001. If this is w hat has been found by the Court on due consideration of the relevant materials, it is difficult to see as to how the departmental proceeding held on the basis o f the Charge Memo dated 23.8.2001 can be said to be legally infirm or foreclosed by any earlier proceeding before this Court, as contended by the petitioner. Th e first submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, has to fail. 10. Coming to the question of suppression of relevant facts at the t ime of the petitioner’s entry into service, the Court would like to observe that the said allegation being the essence of the charge levelled against the petiti oner in the departmental proceeding and the same having been duly enquired into and found to be proved, interference of the Court would be permissible only if t he findings recorded in this regard are based on no evidence or are altogether p erverse. In this regard, the Court has perused the service and character roll of the petitioner as maintained by the department. The Court has found that agains t Column No. 12(a) in response to the query as to whether the petitioner had eve r been arrested, prosecuted, kept in detention etc. the answer of the petitioner is in the negative. Even if the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he had not been arrested in connection with the said case at any point of time is to be accepted, what the Court finds is that in response to the question No. 12(b) i.e. whether there was any case pending against him the answer of the petitioner again has been in the negative. The materials on record having indic ated that the petitioner had appeared in the Court of the learned Magistrate in connection with GR Case No. 32/92 and had defaulted on one occasion which had le d to the issuance of the warrant leading to his arrest in the month of June, 200 6, the answer given by the petitioner to question No. 12(b) obviously is mislead ing. The materials on record clearly establishes that the petitioner was aware o f the pendency of the GR Case No. 32/92 against him. If that be so, the finding s recorded in the enquiry held against the petitioner would be on a reasonable c onsideration of the evidence on record. Interference of the Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in such a situation will not at all be justified. On the aforesaid conclusion that the Court has reached, the s econd contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner must also fail. 11. No further contention having been advanced, this writ petition m ust be held to be without any merit and/or substance. It is, accordingly, dismis sed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost.