TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CISF on 28.12.2013. After successfully completing the training at RTC Bhilai, he was posted at the CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli. 3. Vide order No.V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/DK/2014 9991 dated 11.10.2014, the Appointing Authority, in pursuance to the Proviso of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, terminated the services of the petitioner, in terms of the following order:- "02. The above said Show Cause has been acknowledged by No.130720010 Const/Dvr. Devendra Kumar on 26.09.2014 and submitted his representation dated 08.10.2014. In reply, he stated that during the time of recruitment, he was filing more forms and did not know about any Police case was lodged against him. After receiving of the above Show Cause Notice, he enquired from his home and came to know that a case was lodged by the Police in the year 2006 due to quarrel between his family members and his name was also included in the case. At the time of incident, he was in his childhood and not known about the police procedure. Hence, he did not show the same at the time of recruitment. Finally he is apologizing his act due to his lack of knowledge. 03. I have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above, in pursuance of the Proviso of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, I, Anand Saxena, Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri Devendra Kumar, Constable/Dvr., CISF No.130720010 and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of one month notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service." 4. The petitioner submitted a representation against the above order, which was also dismissed by the Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQrs,, ChPT Campus, Chennai on 02.01.2015. 5. Mr.H.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if the impugned orders dated 11.01.2014 and 02.01.2015 are set aside/quashed and the petitioner is allowed to make a representation to be decided by the respondents in view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported as 2016 8 SCC 471. He also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3775/2017 ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39 (2017) DLT 515 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court has reiterated that the Headquarters of the respondent being located within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition. 9. The limited prayer made by the petitioner before this Court is to permit him to make a representation and for directions to the Competent Authority to examine his case in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). 10. The petitioner is only praying for an opportunity to present his case before the Competent Authority requiring the respondents to examine his case in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). 11. In Avtar Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court has considered the question of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding a criminal case in the verification form. After examining the entire case law on the subject, in paragraph 30 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has expounded and clarified the legal position, as under: "30) We have noticed various decisions and tried to expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information no....