ORDER 1. Heard Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarvadeo Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who was temporarily employed in Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘C.R.P.F.’), has approached this Court, with a prayer to quash an order dated 30th December, 2006 passed by Additional Deputy Inspector General Police, GC CRPF, Mokamaghat, Patna (Bihar), whereby, in view of provision contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of The Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.C.S. Rules’), his services was terminated. Order of termination is annexed as Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 27th April, 2007 passed by Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, C.R.P.F., Patna (kept as Annexure ‘7’ to the writ petition), whereby; appeal, preferred by the petitioner against his order of termination, was dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order contained in Annexure ‘13’ to the writ petition i.e. order dated 8th September, 2007 passed by the Director General, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, whereby; revision preferred by the petitioner was also rejected. 3. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing aforesaid orders, has taken a plea that the petitioner was terminated from the services on unsustainable ground. He submits that though in termination order i.e. Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition, nothing was indicated about reason for termination, but the appellate authority, while considering the appeal, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed the fact at the time of his joining in respect of his involvement in a police case i.e. Shahpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006, registered under Sections 323, 324, 448, 384 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. While referring to copy of F.I.R., which has been brought on record as Annexure ‘8’ to the writ petition and copy of final report dated 29-04-2006 (Annexure ‘9’) submitted by the police in the said case, he has argued that the petitioner was not at all named in the F.I.R., whereas; two persons were made accused, namely; Vijay Tiwary and Subhash Tiwary. After noticing this fact that he was terminated primarily on the ground that petitioner had suppressed the fact regarding his involvement in the police case, the petitioner before the revisional authority has taken a specific ground that the petitioner was not an accused. He has further stated before the revisional authority that in the police case, compromise petition was filed and the said compromise petition was filed by the F.I.R. named accused, Subhash Tiwary not by the petitioner. He has argued that on 07-08-2006, compromise petition was signed by Subhash Tiwary and on the same date, the petitioner was present at his training place in the C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat, Patna (Bihar). He has argued that since petitioner was present at the training centre, it would be beyond imagination that the petitioner could have signed compromise petition. He submits that moreover even in such situation, the punishment of termination was excessive, which has not been approved by the Apex Court in number of cases. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644 (Commissioner of Police and Others Versus Sandeep Kumar). He has specifically referred to paragraph nos. 8 to 12 of the said judgment. He submits that moreover since the petitioner was not accused in the said case, there was no reason for terminating the petitioner from service. Sri Dinu Kumar has also relied on a judgment, reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Case 242 (Vijay Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others), particularly; on the point that when the petitioner had raised specific ground before the revisional authority and as such, the revisional authority was required to examine the same on the basis of materials on record and not in a mechanical manner. On aforesaid grounds, he has prayed for setting aside order of his termination from service as well as order of appellate authority and revisional authority. 4. Sri Sarvadeo Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee, there was no fault in issuance of order of termination after giving one month’s notice as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the C.C.S. Rules. 4. Sri Sarvadeo Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee, there was no fault in issuance of order of termination after giving one month’s notice as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the C.C.S. Rules. He further submits that the appellate authority, while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, had examined the issue and it was found that the petitioner at the time of his joining had suppressed the material fact regarding his involvement in a police case, registered for cognizable offences. He has referred to Annexure ‘12’ to the writ petition, which is a report of Police Office of Shahpur Police Station, wherein, it was indicated that the petitioner was known with alias name of Subhash Tiwary and he was accused in Shahpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006. He further submits that the C.R.P.F. was not an investigating agency, but the C.R.P.F. had relied on a report submitted by the Police Officer, which was specific on the point that the petitioner was one of the named accused person with his alias name i.e. Subhash Tiwary. He submits that since there was report of the police officer of the Shahpur Police Station, showing name of the petitioner as one of the F.I.R. named accused, it was mandatorily required for the petitioner to furnish those facts at the time of his joining, which he had not done and as such, it was sufficient for imposing order of termination, which has been passed under sub-rule (1) Rule 5 of C.C.S. Rules. Therefore, according to learned counsel for respondents, there is no error in either of the orders. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused materials available on record. Fact remains that the order of termination i.e. Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition is termination simplicitor. While passing order under sub-rule (1) Rule 5 of C.C.S. Rules, only requirement is to see as to whether rule was strictly complied with or not. At the time of hearing before this Court, nothing has been brought on record to show that the order was in the teeth of rules prescribed under the C.C.S. Rules. While passing order under sub-rule (1) Rule 5 of C.C.S. Rules, only requirement is to see as to whether rule was strictly complied with or not. At the time of hearing before this Court, nothing has been brought on record to show that the order was in the teeth of rules prescribed under the C.C.S. Rules. It is true that at the time of appeal, the appellate authority had considered the reason for termination, but such reason was not assigned in the order of termination and as such, this Court is not required to examine a thing, which was behind the curtain. At the moment, this Court is required to see as to whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the order of dismissal or not. Prima facie, on perusal of Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition, the Court is satisfied that there is no illegality. So far as the orders of appellate authority and revisional authority are concerned, both have considered the fact that the petitioner had suppressed the fact. Moreover, the petitioner has himself brought on record Annexure ‘12’ to the writ petition, which is a report of police officer of Shahpur Police Station, which indicates that the petitioner was also known with the alias name of Subhash Tiwary. So far as Sandeep Kumar’s case (supra) is concerned, in that case, the personnel was permanent employee and he was not terminated under Rule 5 of the C.C.S. Rules. Similarly, the petitioner may not get any help from the judgment of Vijay Singh’s case (supra) due to the simple reason that the petitioner, during his temporary period of service, was terminated, as per sub-rule (1) Rule 5 of the C.C.S. Rules, which prescribes for either issuance of one month’s notice or in lieu of notice, one month’s salary and allowances. Moreover in the present case, the appellate authority and revisional authority had dealt with each and every ground taken by the petitioner and by assigning detailed reason, appeal and revision were rejected. 6. After going through the materials available on record and after hearing the parties, the Court is of the opinion that there is no error in either of the orders. 7. The writ petition stands dismissed.