Amitava Roy, J :- In challenge is the judgment and order dated 3.9.2010 rendered in WP( C) No.2208/2007 rejecting the assailment of the order dated 6.3.2007 of the Commandant, 50th Bn., C.R.P.F. whereby the appellant was removed from service as a disciplinary measure. 2. We have heard Dr B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr N. Hoque, Advocate and Ms. R.Borah, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The backdrop of facts in short, need be outlined. The appellant had joined the Central Reserve Police Force ( for short, hereafter referred to as the “Force”) as Constable on 24.9.1994. While he was on annual leave in the month of June,1996, he was arrested in connection with Hajo PS Case No.28/1992 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.32/92) for his default to appear before the concerned Court in connection with that proceeding. The respondent authorities having came to learn of this fact and noticing the pendency of the criminal case from before his induction in service, dismissed him therefrom on 15.10.96. This was following the conviction of the appellant on 26.8..96 in the aforementioned criminal case. The dismissal was in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Civil Service( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ( hereafter referred to as the “Rules”) permitting such course of action. The appellant”s department appeal having failed to evoke any response in his favour, he approached this Court with Civil Rule No.541/1998. Meanwhile, he had been acquitted of the criminal charges vide judgment and order dated 31.3.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.41/96 preferred by him and other convicts. By judgment and order dated 25.11.99, this Court interfered with the dismissal of the appellant on the ground that on his acquittal, the very basis thereof had been rendered non est. 4. By judgment and order dated 25.11.99, this Court interfered with the dismissal of the appellant on the ground that on his acquittal, the very basis thereof had been rendered non est. 4. Though as a consequence of the above determination, the appellant was reinstated in service, a memorandum of charges dated 23.8.2001 with the following imputation was served on him : “ That NO.941330734 CT Alauddin Ahmed of 50 BN, CRPF while functioning as Constable committed an act of gross misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Actr, 1949 in that he suppressed the real facts regarding his involvement in a criminal case on 26/6/92 vide FIR No.28/1992 i.e. prior to his appointment in CRPF for getting initial appointment which is punishable under section 147/148/149/431/324/323 & 427 of IPC. Though he was, fully aware that a NBWA was operative against him, he did not inform his employer. Thus he committed an act of misconduct in his capacity a member of the Force which is punishable U/S 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. “ This, initiated a departmental proceeding against him under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Reference of Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS ( CCA) Rules, 1995 was also made thereunder. 5. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the departmental proceeding, the appellant approached this Court with WP( C) No.7060/2001 primarily on the ground that the accusations against him had already been scrutinized and adjudicated upon by this Court in Civil Rule No.541/98 and that therefore, a fresh enquiry thereon was illegal and unwarranted. This writ petition was dismissed in limine on 1.10.2001 whereafter an application for review thereof was filed by the appellant which was registered as Review Petition No.95/2001. Therein, the request of the appellant to bring on record the affidavit filed by the respondents was acceded to vide order dated 22.1.2002. WP( C) No.7060/2001 was finally dismissed for non prosecution on 30.1.2007. The departmental enquiry was thereafter concluded, whereupon by order dated 6.3.2007 referred to hereinabove, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. The learned Single Judge having declined to interfere, the appellant is before us seeking redress. 6. WP( C) No.7060/2001 was finally dismissed for non prosecution on 30.1.2007. The departmental enquiry was thereafter concluded, whereupon by order dated 6.3.2007 referred to hereinabove, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the appellant. The learned Single Judge having declined to interfere, the appellant is before us seeking redress. 6. Dr Ahmed has argued that as the appellant after his induction in service in the year 1994, had remained devotedly engaged in his duties, he did not keep a track of the developments that followed after his arrest in the aforementioned criminal case. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was unaware of the proceedings in the criminal case and therefore there was no suppression on his part in filling up the verification roll at the time of his recruitment to the Force. On instructions, Dr Ahmed has urged that as a matter of fact, Clause 12(a) and 12 (b) of the Verification Roll of the appellant had been filled up by the concerned respondent authority and he only signed on the form. The learned counsel therefore has urged that the charge of willful suppression of the essential information as sought for by Clause 12(a) and Clause 12(b) is wholly unfounded. Additionally, Dr Ahmed has argued that as the order of dismissal dated 15.10.96 initially passed was also with due regard to the allegation of suppression of the aforementioned information, the initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding in the face of the judgment and order dated 25.11.99 of this Court is patently illegal. Apart from contending in general, that the departmental proceeding is violative of the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions of the CCS( CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the CRPF Rules, 1955, the learned counsel has insisted without prejudice to the above that the penalty of dismissal is grossly disproportionate and ought to be interfered with. As a person before being convicted cannot be construed to be accused in law, the allegation levelled against the appellant at all relevant times even otherwise cannot have any adverse bearing on his conduct. 7. As a person before being convicted cannot be construed to be accused in law, the allegation levelled against the appellant at all relevant times even otherwise cannot have any adverse bearing on his conduct. 7. Ms Borah, in reply has argued that it being apparent on the face of the record that the appellant had suppressed material facts in responding to the queries made in Clause 12(a) and Clause 12(b) of the verification roll, the charge levelled against him in the departmental enquiry had been proved and as such, no interference with the order of penalty is called for. She has maintained that as the judgment and order dated 25.11.99 rendered in Civil Rule No.541/98 was in a totally different context, the plea of bar on the initiation of the departmental proceeding in which he had been found to be guilty, is wholly misconceived. 8. We have duly considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the submissions made on the basis thereof. The involvement of the accused appellant in a criminal case as alluded hereinbefore, his recruitment to the Force, his conviction on the charges framed against him therein at the trial, his acquittal in the appeal and his denials as reply to Clause 12(a) and Clause 12(b) of the verification roll, are all matters of record. As the charge on which the appellant has been removed from service is one of suppression of relevant facts regarding his involvement in the criminal case as referred to hereinabove, it would be appropriate to set out Clause 12(a) (b) of the verification roll for immediate reference :- “12.(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/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 education authority/Institutions ? (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up, this Verification Roll ? If answer to (a) or (b) is “Yes”, then give details of prosecutions, arrest, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc., and state about the case pending with the court/University/education art the time of filling in this form.” He had answered in the negative to both the queries. If answer to (a) or (b) is “Yes”, then give details of prosecutions, arrest, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc., and state about the case pending with the court/University/education art the time of filling in this form.” He had answered in the negative to both the queries. Visibly, his response to the information sought for as above, was incorrect as admittedly on date of submission of the verification roll G.R. Case No.32/1992 was pending in which he figured as an accused. 9. A plain reading of the judgment and order dated 25.11.99 passed in Civil Rule No.541/98 does not disclose that the allegation of suppression of facts as above, had been acted upon as a factor for recording the order of his dismissal from service. In that view of the matter, the appellant”s plea against the initiation of the departmental proceeding vide O.M. dated 23.8.1001 is unconvincing. Though the appellant, as has been pointed out by Dr Ahmed, in the writ petition had pleaded that the departmental proceeding had been furthered without giving any opportunity to him to defend his case, has not been spelt out in specific terms the provision of law infringed so as to render the proceeding non est and the consequential order of removal void. Dr Ahmed on being queried, has also not been able to refer any other document supported by solemn affirmation providing the details of the alleged violation. In this view of the matter, at this distant point of time, we are disinclined to accept any such omnibus statement of violation of any relevant provision of law governing a departmental proceeding. 10. In course of the arguments, Dr Ahmed has apprised this Court that the appellant is only a matriculate. As referred to hereinabove, he has submitted that the verification roll as a matter of fact, had been filled up by the concerned authority of the Force to assist him to do so. As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant has been acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him. Reading between the lines, it transpires from the judgment and order dated 31.3.97 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41/96 that the learned lower appellate court had given a clean chit. In other words, his acquittal was not on any benefit of doubt. As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant has been acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him. Reading between the lines, it transpires from the judgment and order dated 31.3.97 passed in Criminal Appeal No.41/96 that the learned lower appellate court had given a clean chit. In other words, his acquittal was not on any benefit of doubt. The appellant was arrested in connection with the aforementioned case in the year 1992 and for the next two years, according to him, he was clue less about the said case. Having regard to the level of academic attainment and the maturity of understanding about the implications of the response sought for from him in the verification roll, it is not unlikely that the appellant out of callousness or negligence had missed to mention about the pendency of the criminal case against him. Out attention has not been drawn to any other adverse antecedent of his or shortfall or deficiency in the services rendered by him during his continuance in the Force. On a totality of the consideration as hereinabove, we are inclined to entertain the appellant”s plea of harshness of the penalty of removal on the charge proved against him. 11. While making these observations, we are not unmindful that at all relevant times, the appellant had been a member of a disciplined Force and ought to had been exemplarily careful in his dealings. Be that as it may, in the background as narrated hererinabove, we consider it appropriate to close this appeal requiring the respondent authorities to reconsider the penalty of removal against the appellant. We hereby grant an opportunity to the appellant to submit a detailed representation before the concerned respondent authority along with a certified copy of this order and if it is so done, the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Khatkhati, Kohima, Nagaland (as we are told that he is the appropriate authority) would take an appropriate decision on such representation. We further require that the aforementioned authority before disposing of the representation, would grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 12. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the above extent. No costs.