1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1933/2007 Rajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors. Date of Order :: 21 st May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.S.Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. .... The petitioner stood discharged from service on 16.2.2006 being involved in a criminal case before enrollment to Border Security Force and also for the reason that he concealed the involvement aforesaid while submitting reply to the question No.8 of the enrollment form. While challenging the discharge aforesaid, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner himself was not adequately aware about the criminal case that was lodged against him when he was participating in a State level tournament at Ajmer as a school student. The petitioner was never arrested and he was only reprimanded by Juveniles Court. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable as he not only concealed the fact about his involvement in a criminal case but also concealed 2 material facts while approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out by counsel for the respondents that in para 4 of the writ petition a specific averment is made that “the petitioner was on duty he was called by his superior officers and informed that he had been discharged from his service on 17.2.2006 under the Provisions of Item 13(3) III(v) of Army Rules, 1954 and under Section 44 of the Army Act. Prior to this no notice or opportunity of hearing or any process of giving a chance under any practice and procedure of natural justice was not adopted”, though a specific notice to show cause was issued by the authority competent on 3.12.2005. Learned counsel for the respondents also attracted attention of the Court towards the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition relating to non-observance of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of the Army Rules, 1954. It is emphasised that the averments contained in para 9 of the writ petition are not only false but are contrary to the admitted fact that a notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner and an opportunity was given to him to explain his version. The issuance and receipt of notice dated 3.12.2005 is admitted by the petitioner in rejoinder. No satisfactory explanation is given by the petitioner for not making reference of the notice aforesaid in the petition for writ. The conduct of the petitioner, 3 therefore, is certainly deplorable. The petitioner not only concealed the fact about receipt of notice but also made a false statement that no such notice was ever issued. The petitioner at first instance concealed the fact relating to his involvement in a criminal case and then about issuance of notice by the respondents before discharging him from service. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, disentitles him from getting any relief by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.