Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 826 (AP)

Bethapudi Vijaya v. Government of India

2002-07-04

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF through orders dated 28-12-1993 and he joined duty on 8-1-1994. He was issued a notice of termination dated 5-8-1994 in exercise of the power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary) Rules 1968 (for short CCS Rules) r/w note (2) of Appendix (f) of the C. R. P. F Rules to the effect that since the respondents have received a letter from the District Magistrate, Guntur about the conduct and character of the petitioner and found that the character and antecedents are not up to the mark and that they intend to terminate him with effect from 5-8-1994. This was followed by a proceeding dated 2-9-1994 terminating him with effect from 3-9-1994. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed counter affidavit stating that after the petitioner was appointed, his antecedents were got verified through the concerned District Magistrate. The respondents have received a letter dated 8-9-1994 from the District Magistrate, Guntur stating inter alia that the petitioner was involved in a crime under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the I. P. C which was tried as Cr. No. 44 of 1989 and the same was ended in conviction. It was further stated that the petitioner was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is also stated that the petitioner has suppressed this information while furnishing the particulars at the time of entering the service. ( 3 ) SRI P. Venkata Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. He submits that the Provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS Rules are not applicable to the CRPF inasmuch as the field is already occupied by the CRPF Rules framed under Section 18 of the CRPF Act. The second contention is that since the petitioner was extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (for short P. O Act) the petitioner does not suffer any disqualification in view of the protection under Section 12 of the said Act. ( 4 ) SMT. The second contention is that since the petitioner was extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (for short P. O Act) the petitioner does not suffer any disqualification in view of the protection under Section 12 of the said Act. ( 4 ) SMT. URMILA, the learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioner has suppressed the information about his having been involved in the criminal case and the mere fact that he has been extended the benefit of Section 4 of P. O Act does not relieve him from the consequences for suppressing the relevant information. ( 5 ) SO far as the first submission is concerned, the learned counsel would have been correct had there been any corresponding provision under the CRPF Act or the Rules made there under governing the matter relating to temporary appointments. Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules deals with only the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the regular members of the force. There are no provisions under the Rules or the Act, which deals with the persons appointed on temporary basis. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any conflict between the CCS Rules on the one hand and the CRPF Rules on the other hand. The question of one prevailing over the other would arise only when there is conflict. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) COMING to the second submission it is not in dispute that the petitioner was involved in a crime under Section 324 r/w 34 of I. P. C that came to be tried as Cr. No. 44 of 1989 and he was convicted therein. However, the petitioner was released under Section 4 of P. O Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 12 of that Act any person who has been released under Section 4 shall not suffer the disqualification if any attached to the conviction of the offences. If the impugned order is based on the conviction of the petitioner in that crime, the same would not have been sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the P. O Act. If the impugned order is based on the conviction of the petitioner in that crime, the same would not have been sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the P. O Act. The reason put forward by the respondent is that though the petitioner was involved in the said crime and was convicted, he did not furnish this information when he stated the other particulars while entering the service. ( 7 ) THE plea raised by the petitioner that since he was released under Section 4, he is not under an obligation to furnish the information cannot be accepted. Availing the benefit under Section 12 is one thing and failure to furnish the information where he was required in law to do so, is another. Section 12 of the P. O Act would certainly galvanise the petitioner from his conviction and involvement in the criminal case. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the same cannot protect the petitioner from the consequences flowing from his failure to furnish that information when he was required to do so. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.