On receipt of the said information and details, by an order/letter dated 23.04.2010, the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh was discharged from service in terms of Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
The Division Bench, in the intra-court appeal, had proceeded on the basis that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh had not given false and wrong information in the Attestation Form. Rules 52.1, 52.2 and 67.2 of the 1987 Rules read as under: – “52.1 As soon as a recruit is selected but before he is formally appointed to the Force, his character and antecedents shall be got verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.
Even if we can grant some latitude and indulgence to the respondent Santosh Kumar Singh on the ground of delay, as he had suffered incarceration for about five years by that time, it is difficult to find any legal fault with the discharge order/letter dated 23.04.2010.
It is during the character and antecedents verification exercise that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh’s involvement in the criminal case had come to the notice of the authorities.
The discharge order/letter dated 23.04.2010 expressly states that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh had conducted himself in an unbecoming manner and, keeping in view that he was facing serious criminal charges under Sections 304-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, it was decided to discharge him.
Learned counsel for the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh also relies on the judgment in Union of India & Ors.
vs Methu Meda, 6 which, in fact, does not help and assist the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH (2023 INSC 435)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008889-008889 / 2022
