NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  6110  OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23875 of 2005]

Union of India & Ors.       .....        Appellants

Versus

Sukhen Chandra Das                     .....       Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated

23.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Gauhati  Bench  at  Agartala  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  88/2002

dismissing the appeal of the Union of India and Others against

the order dated 01.08.2001 of the learned Single Judge of the

High Court in Civil Rule No. 139/1996.

3. Briefly  stated,  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that  the  writ

petitioner-respondent  herein  was  enrolled  as  Constable  on

08.11.1991  in  Central  Reserve  Police  Force  (for  short  ‘the

CRPF’).   Thereafter,  the  appellants  started  the  process  of

verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent

from civil authorities as required under the provisions of the

relevant  rules.   The  District  Magistrate-cum-Collector  (West

Tripura)  by  its  letter  dated  03.06.1994  informed  the

appellants  that  the  respondent  along  with  six  others  was

charge-sheeted by Sonamura Police Station Case No. 91 dated

24.12.1990  for  offences  under  Sections  148/149/380  and

436, IPC.  The respondent, at the time of enrolment in CRPF,

did not disclose the said fact in column No. 12 (a) and (b) of

Verification Roll of CRPF [see Rule 14(B)].  On receipt of the

reply  from  the  District  Magistrate-cum-Collector,  the

Commandant 9th Batallion CRPF vide order dated 23.06.1994

in  purported  exercise  of  the  power  under  Rule  5(1)  of  the

Central  Civil  Services  (Temporary  Services)  Rules,  1965

terminated the services of the respondent.   

2

4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority.   The  IGP N/S, having heard the respondent  and

having  examined  and  verified  the  record,  has  found  no

substance in the defence of the respondent and by reasoned

order  dated  12.07.1995  rejected  the  appeal.   Aggrieved

thereby,  the  respondent  preferred  Civil  Rule  No.  139/1996

which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.08.2001

holding that the order of termination of the respondent was

passed  on  alleged  misconduct  and  the  same  could  not  be

treated as an order simplicitor covered by the CCS (Temporary

Services)  Rules,  1965.   The  learned  Single  Judge,  however,

while  allowing  the  writ  petition  of  the  respondent,  reserved

liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings

against the respondent for alleged misconduct as revealed in

the order of the appellate authority.

5. Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the order of

the learned Single Judge, the Union of India and others filed

Writ Appeal No. 88/2002 which came to be dismissed by the

Division  Bench by  impugned  judgment  by  holding  that  the

order of termination was passed on alleged misconduct as a

3

foundation  not  motive  and  as  such  the  same  cannot  be

treated as an order of simplicitor under Rules, 1965.  Hence,

the Union of India and others have filed this appeal by special

leave challenging the correctness and validity of the order of

the Division Bench of the High Court.   The respondent has

remained ex parte.

6. In  the  absence  of  the  respondent,  we  have  heard  the

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  and  with  his  assistance

perused the entire material on record.  It is not in dispute that

in  terms  of  clause  12  (a)  of  the  CRPF  [see  Rule  14(B]

Verification Roll  [Annexure  (P-2)]  the respondent  was under

obligation to inform the appellants in regard to the pendency

of the criminal case against him.  The appellants started the

process  of  verification  of  character  and  antecedents  of  the

respondent in terms of the relevant service rules.  The District

Magistrate-cum-Collector informed the Additional DIG, Group

Centre CRPF, Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) by registered post letter

dated 03.06.1994,  that as per the report  submitted  by OIC

Melaghar  Police  Station,  the  Police  Case  No.  91/90  dated

24.12.1990 was registered against the respondent and others

4

under  Sections  148/149/380/506  and  436  of  the  Indian

Penal Code.  On receipt of the report, the Commandant 9th BN

CRPF  Chandigarh  (UT)  vide  OO  No.  DV-1/94-EC-I  dated

23.6.1994 recorded the following order:-  

“In pursuance of the provisions to Sub Rule (1)  of  Rule  5  of  the  Central  Civil  Services (Temporary  Services)  Rules,  1965  I  hereby terminate  the  service  of  No.  911263026 constable Sukhen Chandra Das of this unit with  effect  from 25.06.1994  AN  and  direct that  he  shall  be  entitled  to  claim  pay  and allowances  for  the  period  of  Notice  at  the same  rate  at  which  he  was  drawing  them immediately before the termination of service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls.”

7. Undisputedly, the above-extracted order was passed by

the competent authority under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary

Service)  Rules,  1965,  as  the  respondent  was  a  temporary

employee  and was  not  a  confirmed  Constable.   The  record

shows  that  at  the  time  of  enrollment  in  the  CRPF,  it  is

obligatory upon the candidate to fill up Verification Roll (See

Rule  14(B))  of  CRPF  [Annexure-P2  (Colly.).   Para  3  of  the

Verification Roll  mandates “if  the fact that false information

has been furnished of that there has been suppression of by

5

factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at

any time during the service of a person, his service would be

liable to be terminated.”  Para 12(a) states that the candidate

has  to  give  the  information  if  he  has  ever  been  arrested,

prosecuted,  kept  under  detention  or  bound  down/fined,

convicted by a court of law for any offence/disqualified by any

Public  Service  Commission  from  appearing  at  its

examination/selections  or  debarred  from  taking  any

examination/rusticated  by  any  University  or  any  other

educational authority/institution.  In answer to Para 12(a) of

the  Verification  Roll  submitted  by  the  respondent,  he  said

“No”.  In terms of Clause 1.12(a) of the Central Reserve Police

Force  Recruitment  Manual,  1975 as  amended  from time  to

time,  as  soon  as  a  man  has  been  enrolled,  his  character,

antecedents,  qualifications  and  age  shall  be  verified  in

accordance  with  the  procedure  prescribed  by  the  Central

Government  from  time  to  time  from  through  the  District

Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned or

such  other  authority  as  may  be  deputed  by  the  Central

Government.  Sub-para (d) whereof prescribes that if a person

6

is adversely reported upon in the attestation form by the local

authorities, his services will be terminated by giving him one

month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu thereof under CRPF

Rule 16 read with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules,

1965.

8. In the light of the above-stated facts and provisions of

rules, the termination order dated 23.06.1994 was passed by

the Commandant in purported exercise of power under Rule 5

(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) rules, 1965.  The order of

the  Appellate  Authority  dated  July  12,  1995  marked

[Annexure-P3]  reveals  that  the  grievance  of  the  respondent

was that the termination order was served to him without any

show-cause  notice  of  opportunity  which  would  amount  to

breach of natural justice.  He also contended that a false case

was  registered  against  him  in  Tripura.   The  Appellate

Authority  in  its  detailed  reasoned  order  has  recorded  the

finding that from the police verification report  received from

Sonamura Police Station West Tripura it has been established

beyond doubt that a criminal case was registered against the

respondent during December, 1990 which was pending in the

7

court in which six more accused were reported as absconders.

The Appellate Authority in its order concluded that since the

respondent wilfully suppressed the true facts at the time of

filling in the Verification Roll, the termination order recorded

by  the  Commandant  is  held  to  be  fully  justified  and  in

conformity  with the  existing  rules  and instructions   on the

subject.

9. On an independent scrutiny of the relevant documents

on record as discussed above, we are of the considered view

that the order of termination of the respondent recorded by

the competent authority is innocuous on its face and purports

to be an order of discharge in accordance with the terms and

conditions  of  the  appointment  of  a  temporary  Government

servant.  Such termination is neither punitive nor stigmatic in

nature, nor it is, in any event, actuated with any motive.  The

language  of  the  order  clearly  and  plainly  shows  that  it  is

termination simplicitor, rightly based under Rule 5 (1) of CCS

(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 during the period when the

respondent was a temporary employee of CRPF and it does not

cast any stigma to the conduct of the respondent.  Thus, the

8

finding  of  the  High  Court  that  the  order  of  termination  of

services of the respondent will cast stigma and could not have

been  recorded  unless  the  respondent  is  proceeded  in  the

regular departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct,

in our considered view, cannot be sustained.  The decisions

relied upon by the High Court in support of its order are not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

10. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and

order  of  the  High  Court  dated  23.03.2005  passed  by  the

Division  Bench  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  88/2002  upholding  the

judgment  and  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  dated

01.08.2001 in Civil  Rule  No.  139/1996 is  quashed and set

aside.  The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to

costs.

........................................J.                                                 (R. V. Raveendran)

........................................J.                                                (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

9

New Delhi, October 15, 2008.

10