Ms v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioner, a probationer who joined the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) as a Constable, and has been discharged from service vide order dated 29.07.2015, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i.Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by Respondents whereby petitioner was discharged from service; and ii.Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by R-2 whereby Petitioner has been declared not fit for government service: and iii. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated respondents whereby 29.01.2018 passed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 representation of the petitioner was rejected: and iv. Declare the action of Respondents not deciding the representation of the Petitioner forlong· period as arbitrary and illegal. iv(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Respondents whereby the representation of the Petitioner was rejected. v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to reinstate in service with all consequential benefits including seniority, increments, arrears etc.” the Petitioner

2. The relevant facts of the present case are noted herein below: A. The petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents in February, 2011, applied for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and RPSF against the advertised vacancies, and after qualifying the written test, physical test and medical examination, he was issued a call letter dated 05.10.2014 and was provisionally selected as a Constable in the RPSF with an instruction to report to STC BSF, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir with effect from 01.11.2014 to undergo basic training. B. As part of the selection process, the petitioner filled the Attestation Form on 28.05.2014, disclosing three pending FIRs bearing no. 119/2013, 120/2013 & 22/2013 filed against him, which were, as claimed by him, in his knowledge at that time. C. Upon receipt of the Police Verification report dated

26.03.2015 by the respondents, it was found that the

petitioner had failed to disclose a pending FIR No. 338/2013 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 against him and had suppressed this material fact in the Attestation Form. D. Accordingly, the respondents discharged the petitioner from service vide Order dated 29.07.2015. Meanwhile, the petitioner was acquitted in the FIR No. 338/2013 by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 11.08.2015. E. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the petitioner instituted two writ petitions, W.P. (C) No. 12314/2015 before the High Court of Rajasthan and W.P. (C) No. 10819/2015 before this Court. Both writ petitions, however, came to be dismissed as withdrawn by Orders dated 01.10.2015 and 23.11.2015, respectively. The former was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition and the latter was dismissed with liberty to approach the department by way of a representation. F. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated

08.02.2016 to the respondent no. 2, praying that his discharge order be reviewed and he be sent for training. However, no action was taken by the respondents on the said representation of the petitioner, compelling him to prefer yet another Writ Petition bearing no. 7313/2016 before this Court. G. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Order dated

02.08.2017, directing the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, and to examine the allegations made against the petitioner in the FIRs and his conviction/acquittal therein, within 3 months. The petitioner was also granted liberty to make a representation in this regard. H. Availing of the said liberty, the petitioner filed a representation dated 29.08.2017, and he was called for personal hearing on 13.10.2017 by the then Inspector General, RPSF. I. The respondents, vide Order dated 30.10.2017, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that though he was acquitted in the FIR No. 338/2013 by the learned Trial Court, however, three criminal cases remained pending, thus, his character is not unblemished, and held the petitioner not fit for Government service. J. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the FIR Nos 119/2013 & 120/2013, vide separate orders, both dated

29.11.2017 of the learned Trial Court affording him the benefit of doubt. K. In view of this development, the petitioner filed a review petition with the respondents, annexing the copy of the orders in above FIRs and complete evidence of the FIR No. 22/2013, which remained pending at that point in time. L. The respondents, vide Order dated 29.01.2018, rejected the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 said review/representation of the petitioner on the ground that no provision existed for revision/appeal against the order of discharge of a trainee. M. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition bearing no. 1862/2018 before this Court. During the pendency of which, the petitioner was convicted in the pending FIR No. 22/2013 vide Order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur, however, was granted the benefit of Sections 4 (1) & 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. N. In view of this subsequent development, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition with a liberty to approach the respondents with a representation for reconsideration of his case. O. Consequent thereto, the petitioner filed his representation dated 26.09.2018, which was not responded to, forcing the petitioner to prefer the present petition.

3. This Court, on 22.05.2019, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case afresh, and in case the same is rejected, Counter affidavit to be filed. 4. The respondents, vide Order dated 22.07.2019, rejected the representation of the petitioner. 5. Whereafter, the petitioner sought leave to amend the present writ petition, which was allowed on 14.01.2020. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 6. Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner in his Attestation Form had duly disclosed all the pending criminal cases which were in his knowledge at the relevant time. However, the petitioner was discharged from service solely on account of purported suppression of a pending FIR No. 338/2013, of which the petitioner had no knowledge at that point in time. Moreover, contrary to the established law, no Show Cause Notice or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before his discharge. 7. She submitted that had the petitioner’s intention been one of wilful suppression of facts, he would have concealed the pending three criminal cases against him as mentioned in the Attestation Form. However, bonafidely the petitioner had duly disclosed those cases which were in his knowledge. Had the fourth case been in the knowledge of the petitioner, he would have mentioned the same along with the other three criminal cases disclosed by him in the Attestation Form. 8. The learned counsel strenuously contended that once the respondents had duly taken the petitioner on probation after the due disclosure of the three FIRs, they could not rely on the said pending cases subsequently as a basis to reject his candidature. Moreover, the petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases out of the three, that is, in FIR Nos 119/2013 & 120/2013, therefore, the respondents could Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:48:00 W.P.(C) 5623/2019 not have casually rejected the Review Petition dated 09.01.2018 filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that no such provision existed under the Rules. 9. The learned counsel submitted that similarly his representation dated 26.09.2018 was also rejected by the respondents vide Order dated 22.07.2019, without even considering his acquittals in two FIRs and the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon his conviction in the third FIR bearing no. 22/2013. This, the learned counsel submitted is in contravention to the law laid down in Commissioner of Police &Ors vs. Mukesh Kumar &Ors., 2014 (4) SCT 782 (Delhi). 10. In all the orders, she submitted, the respondents adjudicated the representations of the petitioner upholding the discharge from his services, however, assigning different and inconsistent reasons, which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in light of these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner be reinstated in service with other reliefs as prayed for. 11. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgements in support of her contentions: i. ii. iii. iv. v.