Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of termination-dated 09.10.2006 and for a direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as Constable (GD). 2. Thecase of the petitioner is that the second respondent conducted recruitment test for the post of Constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Ball, which is equivalent to Border Security Force. The petitioner was selected to the post of Constable (GD) and he was allotted with service No.0587975. He was deputed for basic training at Udampur in Jammu and Kashmir for 40 weeks. After the completion of the said training, he is entitled to be posted in any one of Battalion attached to the said Sashastra Seema Ball (hereinafter called as SSB). The petitioner joined in the said training on 15.01.2005 and during 40 weeks training, he underwent three tests conducted by the respondents and he came out successfully. The petitioner was given a questionnaire form to be filled up furnishing all the information and the petitioner also filled the same up. On 09.10.2006, the petitioner received a Fax Message from the first respondent, stating, that his service is terminated under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed on the ground that he has not disclosed about the pendency of the criminal prosecution against him while filling up the said form. 3. In the affidavit filed in support, of this Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioners name was included as an accused in the First Information Report for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 506 II of I.P.C., read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A charge sheet was filed and after the trial, the petitioner was acquitted by a Judgment dated 14.09.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Wing), Tiruchirappalli in Special Session Case No.41 of 2005. 4. A charge sheet was filed and after the trial, the petitioner was acquitted by a Judgment dated 14.09.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge (PCR Wing), Tiruchirappalli in Special Session Case No.41 of 2005. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination in this Writ Petition on the ground that he having been acquitted from the Criminal case and no other charge-sheet or FIR was pending against him, he did not mention anything about the involvement in the Criminal case in the said form and the petitioner having been acquitted in the said Criminal case, there is no justification on the part of the first respondent to pass the impugned order of termination. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner was offered with the appointment to the post of Constable (GD) with effect from 15.12.2005 with condition that his character and antecedents will be verified from the Local Police Authority by the first respondent, and in case, any adverse report from Local Police is received, his service is liable to be terminated and when the petitioner was undergoing the training, his character and antecedents were verified. The District Collector of Pudukkotai, through his letter dated 06.05.2006 stated that the Superintendent of Police has noticed adverse remarks against the petitioner, as the petitioner involved in a Criminal case in Crime No.1 of 2005 and his name was arrayed as accused No. 8. Based on the said adverse remarks with regard to the character and antecedents of the petitioner, he was terminated from service under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. As per the said Rule, a temporary Government Servant can be terminated at any either with one month notice or one month notice or one month pay in lieu of such notice period and as illegality in the order of termination passed against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected to the post of Constable (GD) and appointed and successfully completed the said training. In the Criminal case, he was acquitted and the same cannot be stated against the petitioner to justify the order of termination and by virtue of appointment given to the petitioner, he has got a right to hold the post and therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unsustainable. 7. In the Criminal case, he was acquitted and the same cannot be stated against the petitioner to justify the order of termination and by virtue of appointment given to the petitioner, he has got a right to hold the post and therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is unsustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner having been selected to the post of Constable (GD), his character and antecedents are bound to be verified by the respondents and in the appointment order itself, the petitioner was informed that his appointment is subject to verification of the character and antecedents. 8. The learned counsel also argued that admittedly the petitioner involved in a Criminal case and even though he was acquitted, it reflects the character and antecedents of the petitioner, which the respondents are bound to take note of and on that basis, the impugned order was passed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel. The facts are not in dispute. 10. In the appointment order given to the petitioner-dated 12.11.2006, a condition is imposed to the effect that the petitioners character and antecedents will be verified from local police authority by the respondents office very soon. In case, any adverse report from local police authority against the individual is received, his service will be liable to be terminated. The petitioner accepted the said condition and underwent the training petitioner now cannot contend that his Criminal case, the respondents are not justified in terminating the petitioners service. 11. For proper appreciation, the order of appointment is extracted hereunder: "No.13th Bn/ESTT/0150/2005, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Office of the Commandant, 13th Bn SSB, Piprakothi, Distt-East Champaran, Bihar Dated the 12.11.2006. ORDER: In pursuance to Force Hqr Memo. No.12/31/13th Bn/2005/SSB/E-III-1699-1701, dated 1.10.2005 Shri V. Muthu Kumar, S/o. SH. Veera Samy, VIII-& PO Mudhali Patti, PS-Regunadhapuram, Distt-Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu is hereby appointed to the rank of Constable (GD) in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4950 with usual allowances as admissible under rules w.e.f 15.12.2005 (FN) in 13th Bn Piprakothi. His particulars are as under: 1. Date of Birth: 25.11.80. 2. Educational Qualification: SSLC 3. Whether SC/ST/OBC: OBC 2. The appointment is purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated by one months notice from either side without any reason being assigned. His particulars are as under: 1. Date of Birth: 25.11.80. 2. Educational Qualification: SSLC 3. Whether SC/ST/OBC: OBC 2. The appointment is purely on temporary basis and liable to be terminated by one months notice from either side without any reason being assigned. The appointing authority reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him a sum of equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the un-extended at the discretion of the un-expired portion thereof. 3. The appointee will be on probation for a period of two years, from the date of appointment, which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority, but such extension will not exceeded one year. 4. He has been medically examined in details at, the time of recruitment and found medically fit as per medical report of SSB Memo referred to above. 5. He has become a member of CGEGIS-1980 from the date of his appointment of a subscription of Rs.10/- p.m. in the Unit of Group –C Employee till 31.12.2005 and thereafter @ 30/- p.m. 6. His character & Antecedents will be verified from local police authority by this office very soon. In case any adverse report from local police authority against the individual is received, his service will be liable to be terminated. 7. He will be governed under Contributory Pension Scheme for Pensionary benefit effect from 01.01.2004. 8. He has been allotted Regimental No.0587975and posted to G coy. 9. Other terms and condition as contained in FHQ memo. Referred to above will be remain unchanged. Desh Raj Commandant SSB (Camp at STC BSF Udhampur)" 12. A similar issue arose before the Supreme Court in the decision in Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 (11) SCC 605 and in paragraph 3 it is held as follows: -- "It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences; the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of these consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service". 13. The said Judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in T. Sekar v. The Secretary to Government and another, 2007 WLR 504 and dismissed the claim of appointment made by the appellant as Police Constable. The same is the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the decision in V. Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (3) MLJ 676 . 14. In the decision in State of M.P. v. Ramashankar Raghuvanshi, AIR 1983 374, the Supreme Court justified in getting a police report on the question of the involvement of the candidate in any manner or subversive activity in order to find out his suitability for public employment. 15. In the above cases also, the candidates were either denied appointment or the selection was withdrawn on the basis of the bad character and antecedents, even though the said candidates were acquitted in the Criminal case. In the light of the above Judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not justified in contending that he is entitled to continue in service as Constable (GD). 16. In the light of the above Judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is not justified in contending that he is entitled to continue in service as Constable (GD). 16. The verification of antecedents i.e., the character of the candidate is also upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision in Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, 2006 (1) SCC 778 and in paragraph 13 it is held as follows: "The antecedents would include various facts, like association with anti-social elements, unlawful organizations, political affiliations, integrity of conduct and moral uprightness. All these factors have necessarily to be verified before a decision is taken by the appointing authority to appoint a candidate to a sensitive post like member of CAT. In Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar, this Court emphasized that even for the appointment of a constable in police services, verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for a post under the State. Even if such candidate was found physically fit, had passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, if on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a constable, the view taken by the appointing authority could not be said to be unwarranted, nor could it be interdicted in judicial review". 17. The power of the respondents to terminate the temporary Government Servant under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, by giving one month notice or one month pay in lieu of notice is upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision in Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, AIR 1997 SC 3659 and in paragraph 5, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "Since the respondent is only a temporary Government Servant, the power being available under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, it is always open to the competent authority to invoke the said power and terminate the services of the employee instead of conducting the enquiry or to continue in service a Government servant accused of defalcation of public money. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money". 18. Reinstatement would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of public money". 18. In the impugned order, the petitioner is given salary in lieu of notice as required under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, Rule 5(1) reads as follows: "Termination of Temporary Service. — (1)(a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant; (b) The period of such notice shall be one month Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month". 19. In the light of the above quoted Rule, which empowers the first respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the petitioners character and antecedents are found to be improper due to the involvement in the Criminal case, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned order. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are dismissed.