IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.2205 of 2007 Date of decision 1.10.2008 Suresh Kumar Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Centre Govt. counsel. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) In the present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 2.7.2007 passed by Deputy Inspector General (L & C), Indo Tibetan Border Police, in short called ITBP, whereby the statutory appeal dated 27.2.1998 has been rejected being devoid of merit. 2. Main thrust of the arguments of Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is a non speaking order and as such is not legally sustainable. 3. According to Mr. Goel, in another round of litigation also when the petitioner preferred civil writ petition No.146 of 2000 challenging his termination order dated 15.12.1997, the said writ petition was dealt with elaborately by this court vide order dated 13.9.2004. Earlier when the petitioner challenged his termination order dated 15.12.1997, an order was passed by the Appellate Authority in earlier Civil Writ Petition No.146 2 of 2000.This Court vide its order dated 13.9.2004 has set aside the earlier appellate order dated 7.4.1998 and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the statutory appeal dated 27.2.1998 and dispose the same on merits in accordance with law by a reasoned order taking into consideration the grounds of appeal of the petitioner and relevant material placed on record. In compliance thereto the Appellate Authority considered the statutory appeal dated 27.2.1998 and had disposed of the same by an order dated 213.12.2004 by an order which too was challenged in a civil writ petition No.362 of 2005. This Court vide order dated 4.5.2007 was pleased to set aside the subsequent appellate order dated 23.12.2004 and relegated the appeal back for deciding the same on merits and thereafter to dispose of the same by a reasoned order taking into consideration the grounds of appeal, memorandum of appeal and also relevant material placed on record. In compliance to the above order, the Deputy Inspector General (L&C), ITBPF has dealt with the appeal has passed a detailed impugned order on 2.7.2007 which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. In order to deal with the present petition, it is necessary to give brief background of the case. It appears that the petitioner Sh. Suresh Kumar was enrolled as Constable in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force(for short ITBPF) on 2.12.1995 and while in service he filled column No.12 of statutory form for seeking employment, Column 12 provides in the form reads as below: “(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence of debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing as its examination/selection, or debarred from taking examinations/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? 5. Undisputedly the petitioner while filling the said column in Form has indicated ‘No’. It appears the Commandant, TPT, Battalion ITB, Police issued a memorandum dated 27.6.1997 asking him to explain for not 3 mentioning true facts about his character/antecedent. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.7.1997 to the said memorandum. It appears that another memorandum dated 21.11.1997 was issued to the petitioner asking him to give reasons as to why action should not be taken against him under Rule 22 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994 (for short called ITBPF Rules, 1994) and under Section 25 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act,1992 for concealing the facts of registration of a criminal case against him. The said memorandum was responded by the petitioner and on scrutiny of the same it was found that the petitioner was guilty of concealing the facts of not giving correct disclosure of his involvement in a criminal case No.152/1995 dated 19.7.1995. Accordingly he was dismissed from service in exercise of Rule 17 read with Rule 22 of the “ITBPF Rules, 1994” vide order dated 7.4.1998. 6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by civil writ petition No.516 of 1998 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.2.1999 with liberty to approach the concerned authorities to get further clarification regarding character and antecedent report. In reference thereto the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Inspector General (L&C) requesting him to reexamine the entire matter and set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 15.12.1997. 7. It appears that the petitioner case was enquired into by Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and he found that a case No.152/1995 dated 19.7.1995 was registered against the petitioner, his brother Naresh Pal and father Sada Nand under Sections 447, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and challan to that effect was prepared on 28.7.1997 and the same was sent to Gram Panchayat, Fatehpur on 29.7.1997 for trial and the petitioner was arrested. However, the petitioner had deliberately concealed these facts to mention in Column No.12 in the prescribed form for the purpose of getting employment in 4 ‘ITBPF’. The termination however was again challenged by way of Civil Writ Petition No.146 of 2000 which was adjudicated vide order dated 13.9.2004 as indicated above. 8. According to Sh.Janesh Mahajan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents the impugned order has been passed after careful consideration of the entire record and detailed reasons have been given after proper analysis. The appellate authority has indicated in its finding in respect of every objections raised by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel non mentioning of the factual aspects in the prescribed form is a serious offence and goes to the root of the case in seeking employment in the ‘ITBPF’. He further argued that non mentioning of true facts in the character and antecedent in the relevant column No.12 by the petitioner is very serious offence. For this purpose the learned counsel has referred and relied upon Rules 17 read with Rule 22 of the ‘ITBPF, Rules, 1994’ Chapter IV of the Rules. 9. For proper appreciation of the case it is necessary to refer Rule 17 and Rule 22 of the ‘ITBPF, Rules, 1994’ Chapter IV of the Rules as below: “17. Termination of service. Authorities specified in the headings of Column s 3 to 6 to the Table given below shall be competent to dismiss, remove, discharge , retire or release a member of the Force specified in the columns, on the grounds stated in the corresponding entries in Column 2, in accordance with the procedure laid down in this chapter. Any power conferred by this rule or any provision of this Chapter on any of the aforesaid authorities may also be exercised by any other authority superior to it; Provided that the provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the persons on deputation with force. Table: _______________________ 5 _______________________ Rule 22 reads as under: “22. Termination of service on grounds of furnishing false/incorrect information at the time of appointment:- The Central Government, or as the case may be, the authority as specified in rule 17, may terminate the service of a person subject to the Act on grounds of furnishing false/incorrect information at the time of appointment of that person in the service. A show cause notice giving one month’s time shall be issued to the individual before termination of his service.” 10. A perusal of aforesaid Rules indicate that an employee could be terminated by the competent authority for mentioning incorrect information at the time of filing the aforesaid form in seeking employment. I have also gone through the records and have also perused the relevant form enclosed as Annexure R-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner while filling Column No.12 has written ‘No’. In this regard I have also gone to the contents of the Appellate Authority Order dated 2.7.2007 by which the Appellate Authority has dealt with the memo of appeal and has dealt with grounds (a) to (h) mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The Deputy Inspector General (L&C) ITBPF as an Appellate Authority has dealt with in detail the grounds of appeal and has affirmed the finding arrived at by the competent authority in view of the provisions of Rule 17 read with Rule 22 of the ‘ITBPF, Rules, 1994’ . The Appellate Authority has correctly and elaborately dealt the grounds of appeal (a) to (h). Though initially the Appellate Authority has mentioned that these grounds are wrong and as such are denied. However, subsequently these points have been dealt with in detail and reasonings have been given for accepting the verdict of the competent authority in respect of these grounds as indicated above. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 2.7.2007 has while dealing each 6 ground has arrived at findings that the petitioner while filing the form has not mentioned in Column 12 about the pendency of criminal case and about his alleged involvement in offence under Sections 447, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was given show cause notice. His reply was considered. The matter was enquired into by the authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and again a show cause notice was served to the petitioner and his reply was considered and it was found that for reasons best known to him he has not recorded the correct factual aspect in Column No.12 and for this concealment of true facts about character and antecedent and pendency of criminal case was of such magnitude that by providing opportunity of hearing and specifically the requirement of interest of justice, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from the service in exercise of provisions of provisions of Rule 17 read with Rule 22 of the ITBPF, Rules, 1994. 11. For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the decision taken by the competent authority of ITBPF and the appellate authority in the impugned order, I do not find any illegality and impropriety to interfere in the said order. There being no merit in the Writ Petition as such the same is dismissed. October 1,2008 (g) ( R.B. Misra ), Judge.