Special Appeal Writ
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/regularization-of-village-level-workers-in-tamil-nadu/
No 637 of 2021 filed by the respondents-Union of India (appellants before the Division Bench), and has set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Single Bench, which had allowed the Civil Writ Petition
No 17475 of 2018 filed by the present petitioner (respondent before the Division Bench). The Commandant Discipline, CISF, keeping in view the young age and future prospects of the petitioner, imposed punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.
The revision petition filed by the petitioner before the competent authority assailing the said order dated 23.06.2010 also came to be dismissed by the Revisional Authority vide the order dated 21.12.2010.
The Commandant CISF Unit CSIA, Mumbai after considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in case of Avtar Singh (supra), held that the CISF being an Armed Force of Union of India, which is deployed in sensitive sectors, the force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order, and that the involvement of the petitioner in the grave offences debarred him from the appointment to such force and, therefore, he was not found suitable for the appointment in CISF for the post of constable/GD vide order dated 14.05.2018. Asifa Rashid Mir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case when he was hardly aged about 19 years and the said case had resulted into a compromise between the parties.
Bala Subramanian, appearing for the respondents however, taking the Court to the CISF Rules 2001, the circulars applicable to all Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) including the CISF regarding the policy guidelines to be followed in respect of the candidates against whom criminal cases are pending vide OM dated 01.02.2012, dealing with suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form, submitted that the CISF being very disciplined police force and the post of constable being very sensitive post, the petitioner who was found to be guilty of gross misconduct of suppressing the material fact of his involvement in the criminal case at the time of seeking appointment, could not have been continued in service, and that the Division Bench has rightly considered the facts of the case and upheld the decision of the respondent authority, which may not be interfered with.
It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/judgment-on-execution-of-lease-deed-for-remaining-land/
The respondents-authorities had after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court.
Case Title: EX CONST/ DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 42)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-010499 / 2022
