CWP No. 5983 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5983 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.04.2010 Constable Ashok Kumar s/o Hazari Lal ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Border Security Force Punjab Regiment, Jalandhar Cantt Punjab and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the order dated 17.08.2005 (Annexure P-6), vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents on the ground that a criminal case No. 302 dated 14.11.2003 was found registered against the petitioner in Police Station Chand Hat on 14.11.2003 under Sections 354/323 IPC, which information he did not disclose at the time of enrolment and the case was still pending against him in the Court. Non-disclosure of the information was one of the grounds, which was taken against the petitioner for CWP No. 5983 of 2010 2 terminating his services. It is not in dispute that the registration of the FIR and the pendency of the case before the Court was not disclosed by the petitioner while submitting his enrolment form. The only plea taken is that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the petitioner. The said plea cannot be accepted for the reason that the format itself clarifies the position with regard to the fact as to whether there was a criminal case registered and pending against him or not. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of termination on the ground that the criminal case, which was pending against the petitioner on the date of his termination, has been decided and the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He contends that the reason, for which his services were terminated, does not exist now in the light of the acquittal by the Court in the case pending against him. The judgment dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal acquitting the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. A perusal of the judgment would show that the eye witness Roop Chand had supported the case of the prosecution and had implicated the petitioner in the case. The Court has proceeded to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner while acquitting him. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case without any basis. In any case, the non-disclosure of the fact that a criminal case was registered and pending against him at the time of his enrolment itself disentitles the petitioner the right to being considered for appointment to the post of a Constable and that too, in a disciplined force like the Border Security Force. The order of termination dated 17.08.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondents is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. CWP No. 5983 of 2010 3 Leaving everything apart, there is a delay of more than 4 ½ years in approaching this Court while challenging the order of termination passed against the petitioner. There is no explanation forth coming except that the criminal case was pending against him, in which he has now been acquitted. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 01, 2010 pj CWP No. 5983 of 2010 4