SBCWP NO.13492/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13492/2008. Raju Ram Versus Central Reserve Police Force & Ors. Date of Order:- May 11, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sargam Jain for the petitioner. Shri M.S. Raghav for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- Contention of Shri Sargam Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was selected for appointment on the post of Constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.). His selection was made on 31/5/2007. He left his village in the afternoon on 16/6/2007. Fact of about his selection came to the knowledge of petitioner's uncle. He lodged first information report being FIR No.163/2007 on 16/6/2007 for offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC due to civil dispute between the family members. The petitioner without knowing this fact, went to join his duties as Constable in the CRPF and joined his duties on 18/6/2007. On the basis of the letter dated 17/10/2007 sent by the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu to the Additional DIGP, GC-1 CRPF, Ajmer for verification of the SBCWP NO.13492/08. 2 character of the petitioner, a notice was served upon the petitioner on 15/11/2007 alleging that he made concealment of fact at the time of filling of the application form that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the notice dated 15/11/2007 by way of filing writ petition being SBCWP No.10146/2007. In the meantime, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 15/12/2007. Petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with the liberty to file it afresh challenging the termination order dated 15/12/2007. Ultimately, police submitted Final Report (F.R.) in the matter as the case was found to be false. Hence, this writ petition. 2) Shri M.S. Raghav, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that services of the petitioner were terminated according to Rule 5(1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on the allegation of concealing the fact of pendency of a criminal case against him. There is no evidence on record that petitioner left the village on 16/7/2007 and the letter dated 31/5/2007 is merely a proposal to join service and not an appointment letter. His services were therefore liable to be terminated on this ground. 3) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is clearly evident that the criminal case SBCWP NO.13492/08. 3 which was lodged against the petitioner was found to be false by the police and therefore police closed the matter submitting final report in the matter. The criminal case was lodged by his uncle owing to the family dispute only with a view to depriving the petitioner of appointment. In fact, petitioner did not make any concealment. 4) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15/12/2007 is quashed and set- aside. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner in service pursuant to his selection. However, he shall not be entitled for any actual benefits for the intervening period but shall be entitled for notional benefits. 5) Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order to the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil