Petitioner challenging termination from temporary CRPF service claimed regular Constable recruitment and alleged exoneration from criminal charges. Court found appointment was temporary as Water Carrier, termination valid under rules, and dismissed petition due to false averments.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935
WP(C).No. 26576 of 2004 (L)
PETITIONER :
--------------
AJAS THAJU, S/O. THAJUDHEEN, AJAS MANZIL, EDAMON P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE COMMANDER, 63 CRPF, SIVASAKTHI MEDU, DHARMASALA, ARIL ROAD KAFRA, UDAMPUR, JAMMUKASHMIR.
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIGP, GC, CRPF, PALLIPURAM.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF HEAD QUARTERS, DELHI.
4. THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, KOLLAM.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.04.2013, THE COURT ON 21-05-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26576 of 2004 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 26576 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, in the writ petition, claimed to be regularly recruited in the post of Constable by a selection process, to the Central Reserve Police Force. He claimed that he was called for training to the CRPF Camp at Udhampoor in Jammu and Kashmir. While he was undergoing the training he was informed that the police verification report indicated his participation in a crime registered as crime No.341/2002 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 153 A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner not being aware of the same, informed his father and got a copy of the FIR which is produced as Ext.P1. He claims to have filed an application, for getting any additional report filed in the crime, which is produced as Ext.P2. The report sent by the District Superintendent of Police to the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF was produced as Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 is said to be the termination order issued by the Central Reserve Police Force
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 2 :
on the basis of Ext.P3. The petitioners contention is that in any event Ext.P5 report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police Thenmala in Crime No.253/2002 dated 18.7.2004 evidences that his name was removed since he was found to be not involved in the incident; on subsequent investigation.
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 3 :
provided under the rules, the petitioner had not invoked such remedy but had filed a representation addressed to the Director General CRPF. This representation was considered by the DG CRPF by Order No. R XIII/2004- Adm-1 dated 7.12.2004. Though the same is said to be produced as Ext.R (b) in the counter affidavit, the same is not seen in the records. Hence the learned Standing Counsel for Union of India handed over a copy of the same across the Bar. It is very pertinent that the petitioner has not filed any affidavit controverting the specific averments made in the statement and the counter affidavit of the official respondents
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 4 :
petitioner ought not to have been terminated. The learned counsel also places reliance on Mansarudeen v. KSEB (1994 KHC 137) and Suresh v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2008 (2) KHC 690) wherein it was categorically found by a Division Bench and a learned Single Judge of this Court that the pendency of a criminal case against a candidate cannot be the sole ground to hold that his character and antecedents disqualify him for appointment to any service.
“The State Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service:
Provided that, before the Government are satisfied of the character and antecedents of a person selected/advised for appointment by direct recruitment, the Appointing Authority may
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 5 :
appoint him/ her temporarily under clause (i) of sub-rule(a) of R.9 of these rules subject to the condition that his/her appointment shall be terminated without notice if Government are not satisfied of his/her character and antecedents on subsequent verification and that he/shall be eligible for appointment in regular service in accordance with the Rules only if his/her character and antecedents are found satisfactory on subsequent verification.”
Mansarudeen(supra) was a case in which the criminal case was an offshoot of a civil dispute which reasoning is not applicable in the instant case.
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 6 :
It was held that while the pendency of a criminal case cannot by itself be treated as conclusive of the character and antecedents of an aspirant to public service; it was also held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an altogether irrelevant factor to be completely eschewed from consideration by the Government, when it is called upon to satisfy itself as to the character and antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of R.10(b) (iii) of the Rules. In the background of the learned Single Judge having held that the pendency of a criminal case would definitely be a relevant aspect; the facts of the instant case has to be examined.
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 7 :
“Sri. Ajas Thaju, Water Carrier (Force No.030630089) was temporarily appointed as Government Servant in this battalion on 12.7.2003 under Section 2(D) read with Section 5 of the CRPF Act 1949.
As a member of the battalion he is governed by the provisions under Rule 5, sub rule 1 of CCS(Temporary Service) Rules,1965 read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules 1955.
Under Rule 16(a) of CRPF Rules, 1955 read with CCS(Temporary Service) Rule 5(1), Battalion Force No. 030630089, Water Carrier, Ajas Thaju's service is terminated. He can claim for leave wages in lieu of the notice.
As per order order No. GIOMS 39/14/56 dt. 22.6.1956m the instructions in the judgment of the Special Court and the order No.16/2001, the reason for terminating the service is not disclosed.
not appointed as a Constable after a due process of selection but was merely appointed on a temporary basis as Water Carrier. In addition to the fact that the petitioner has made clearly false averments in the above writ petition, the grounds of termination also has to be looked into.
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 8 :
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 9 :
considers the issue of the petitioner's involvement in the crime. Ext.P4 order refused to disclose the reasons for terminating the service as per a cited Government order and the judgment of a Special Court. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner contained the documents namely, the FIR (Ext.P1) and further report(Ext.P8) produced herein. The appellate authority also contemplated on the necessity of the further report; presumably after investigation; removing the name of the petitioner from the array of the accused; in the background of the contention that the FIR did not at all contain the name of any of the accused. While considering the contention that Ext.P5 exonerates the petitioner, after investigation was carried on in the crime, the question that looms large is why was such removal from the array of accused necessitated; if the petitioner was never arrayed in Exts.P1 and P2. The contention that the petitioner was never arrayed as an accused hence cannot hold good.
WPC.No.26576/2004
: 10 :
terminated from; this Court is not persuaded to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is
dismissed, however, with no costs.
Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner temporarily appointed as a water carrier could claim regular recruitment as a Constable to resist termination.
Whether termination of a temporary government servant under CCS(Temporary Service) Rules and CRPF Rules was valid despite an alleged quashing of criminal charges.
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 should be entertained where the petitioner made false averments regarding his appointment post.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mansarudeen v. KSEB (1994 KHC 137)Distinguished¶45
Mansarudeen v. KSEB (1994 KHC 137)
Suresh v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2008 (2) KHC 690)Applied¶55
Suresh v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (2008 (2) KHC 690)
Suresh A (supra)Explained¶55
Suresh A (supra)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
AJAS THAJU
THE COMMANDER, 63 CRPF
THE ADDITIONAL DIGP, GC, CRPF
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF
THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, KOLLAM
K VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
