1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1731/2008 Ved Prakash vs CMD, JVVNL Ltd., & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 27.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. RS Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner after due selection to the post of Technical Helper (Electrical) was appointed vide order dated 25.8.2007 as Probationer Trainee against the vacancies of the year 2005-07. The petitioner joined in the services and petitioner's services have been terminated vide order dated 7.2.2008 (Annex.4) on the ground that because of condition no.3 and 18 of the appointment order when police verification report was called from the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar then he gave adverse report and, therefore, on the basis of that adverse report, the petitioner's services are terminated. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 7.2.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not suppress any fact and two criminal cases were lodged wherein the petitioner was also accused. In one of the case, there was allegation that a land was got entered in petitioner's 2 name and that too prior to his birth. According to learned counsel for the petitioner that could have been done anybody else than the petitioner. Another case registered against the petitioner was under Section 458, 354, 323, 447, 427, 147, 148 and 149 PC. The petitioner was also one of the accused alongwith 7 named accused with 10 to 12 other persons. It is submitted that pendency of the criminal case is no disqualification for appointment nor it can be made ground for termination of the services of a probational. It is submitted that petitioner has been subsequently acquitted also. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court delivered in the case of Mukesh Kr. Arvind Vs. State & Anr reported in 2009 WLC, 121 and another delivered in the case of Ashu Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2008 WLC 71. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was appointed on probation basis and as per condition no.3 of appointment order itself, the petitioner's services could have been terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's remuneration in lieu of notice and under clause 18 which provides that other terms and conditions will be the same as are applicable to the employees of the Jodhpur Discom. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. 3 It appears from the facts of the case that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he suppressed any material fact from the respondents for obtaining the appointment and in the impugned order dated 7.2.2008 there is only reason given for termination of the services of the petitioner is that since police verification report come against the petitioner, therefore, his services have been terminated. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court that there is any provision in rule on account of which it can be said that on account of pendency of the criminal case, the incumbent may be held disqualified for appointment to the post for which petitioner was given appointment. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that petitioner has been subsequently acquitted and therefore also, there is no reason to not quash the order dated 7.2.2008 In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 7.2.2008 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be treated to be in service as if the order dated 7.2.2009 was never passed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-