High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Gorakhnath Pradhan v. The Union Of India And Another - WRIT - A No. 11906 of 1997  RD-AH 7282 (20 April 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11906 of 1997
The Union of India & another
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this petition against his termination from service vide impugned order dated 28.10.1996 passed by the Commandant, First Battalion Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (respondent no. 2) and for a direction to the respondents to allow him to participate in Commando training.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force in 1995 after going through several physical tests and other formalities. After selection the petitioner was directed by the Head Constable to fill up a recruitment form including Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) bearing column 12 (Ka) and (Kha) relating to character and antecedents. The petitioner alleges to have filled up and signed the form on 15.12.1995. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as a Constable in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force and was sent for training at Mussoorie on 30.12.1995 along with other similarly appointed constables which he completed on 6.10.1996, from which date the training of Commando was to be started for which also he was selected.
It appears that during the aforesaid training a show cause notice dated 23.9.1996 was issued to the petitioner for concealment of facts in the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) with regard to pendency of two criminal cases against him at the time of recruitment of constables.
The petitioner alleges to have submitted his reply dated 12.10.1996 to the aforesaid show cause notice. However, vide impugned order dated 28.10.1996 respondent no. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner on the basis of report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner at the time of his recruitment which the petitioner concealed while filling column nos. 12 (Ka) and (Kha) of the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) relating to verification of character and antecedents after his recruitment.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in Criminal Case No. 203/92 under Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. Read with Section 13 (i) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities) Prevention Act neither any process was issued nor the petitioner was ever summoned by the court nor the Investigating Officer came to his house in connection with investigation of the aforesaid case, as such he had no knowledge of pendency of the aforesaid case against him.
With regard to the other Criminal Case No. 225/94, it is contended that the same has been finally decided by the trial court as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur acquitting all the accused including the petitioner vide his judgment and order dated 27.1.1997 contained in Annexure IV to the writ petition.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not conceal the fact of pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases deliberately. The Head Constable is alleged to have asked him to put his signatures at the place indicated by him in the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) and the contents of the form including column 12 (Ka) and (Kha) relating to character and antecedents were not read over and explained to him by the Head Constable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in Qamrul Hoda Vs Chief Security Commissioner, N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur, (1997) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1201.
In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the form was filled up and signed by the petitioner himself on 8.3.1996 at Indo Tibetan Border Police Academy, Mussoorie. It is further stated that although the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) was not filled up by the petitioner in his own hand writing but all columns therein were read over and explained to him before obtaining his signatures in the form the consequences of which the petitioner was supposed to know having passed Intermediate Examination.
In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was given one month's time on 23.9.1996 to file his reply to the show cause notice, but his reply was received on 2.11.1996 while he was already terminated on 28.10.1996.
In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) was filled up and signed by the petitioner on 8.3.1996 while as per judgment of the Sessions Court of Ghazipur he was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 225/94 on 27.1.1997, i.e., after about 10 months of filling up the form.
It is further stated that the petitioner has himself stated in his reply dated 12.10.1996 to the show cause notice dated 23.9.1996 that he was involved in a land dispute and a criminal case was pending against him in a court. The relevant part of the said reply dated 12.10.1996 is as under: -
"........Uprokta Sambandha me prarthi ka case nyayalaya me vicharadhin hai jisme ki prarthi ke pariwar ke chacha Sri Parasnath Pradhan evam bhai Sri Lalloo Pradhan ke prati samuhik roop se jamin ke sambandha me mukdama Sri Lachiram ne kiya tha jo ki vartman samay me bhi nyayalaya me vicharadhin hai. Mujhe matra dushmani evam mera bhavisya kharab karne ki neeyat se Sri Lachiram ne mujhe jamin ke vivid me shamil kiya hai.
Prarthi uprokta vivid me matra ek bar court me gaya tha uske bad mujhe kisi prakar ki jankari nahi hai.......
Mahodaya prarthi ne ukta case ko chhipane ko jaan boojh kar koi koshish nahi ki hai..."
In reply to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner that the answering respondent has accepted the fact that the petitioner had not filled up his character and verification form in his own hand writing but were filled up by the Head Constable without reading over and explaining the same to him.
The services of the petitioner were admittedly dispensed with on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to whom the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) was sent for verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner by the respondents after selection/appointment of the petitioner as a Constable in Indo Tibetan Border Police Force. In the said report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur it has been clearly stated that "Gorakhnath putra Sri Raj Narain ke viruddha nyayalaya me mukdama chal raha hai aur karmi ke viruddha nyayalaya me mukdama vicharadhin hone ke karan uske charitra evam purvavat satyapan ke bare me mantavya dena uchit nahin hai."
The petitioner is admittedly Intermediate passed and was aged about 19 years at the time of filling up of the aforesaid form. Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that he was not read over and explained the contents of the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll (Form No. ITBP-25) by the Head Constable he should have enquired from the Head Constable about the contents, purpose and consequences before putting his signatures at the place assigned in the form. Even otherwise he was required to fill up the form himself. Thus, the plea taken by the petitioner that he was not read over and explained the contents of the form cannot be accepted and believed.
The decision in Qamrul Hoda (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable as the facts of that case are altogether different. In the case of Qamrul Hoda (supra) the petitioner was a student of XI Class aged about 15 years and he was in the crowd of thousand of students demonstrating against the increase of fee against the then Chief Minister of U.P. Sri Veer Bahadur Singh. He was not assigned any specific role, whereas in the instant case the petitioner had knowledge of pendency of the criminal cases which he had deliberately concealed for oblique motive of not loosing the job.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and find the petitioner guilty of concealment of material fact.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.