Background Facts

The respondent participated in a recruitment process for enrolment of Constables to the Force. The notification inviting applications in the year 2012-2013 was published by the Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi. The respondent participated in the various stages and emerged successful. He was appointed as a Constable in the Force on probation.

The respondent's attestation form submitted at the time of appointment was verified from the authorities. The respondent was served with a notice of termination whereby he was terminated from service with immediate effect under the Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 2001 (CISF Rules). He was also paid one month salary in lieu of the notice period which was deposited in his bank account.

The respondent filed an appeal before the Inspector General of the Force. The Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commandant and rejected the appeal. The order of termination and the order passed by the Inspector General of the Force were challenged by the respondent in the writ proceeding. The Single Judge quashed the order of termination and the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India filed the Intra Court appeal before the High Court at Calcutta.

It was submitted by the Union of India that the respondent had made a false declaration in the verification form at the time of availing an appointment. The respondent denied implication in two criminal cases in the form. It was submitted that in the self-attestation form, the authorities have mentioned on the first page that if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.

It was submitted by the UOI that the respondent was terminated from the services during probationary period. It was further submitted that the respondent admitted that he was also made involved in the false Criminal Case with another name.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that his name (Gujjidi Varaprasad son of Gujjidi Satyanarayana) was not mentioned as an accused in the criminal cases. The name of the accused was mentioned in Crime No. 70/2013 as Gujjidi Ramakrishna son of Satyam, and in Crime No. 5/2014 as Gujjidi Ramakrishna son of Satyanaraya. Therefore, there was no question of his implication in any criminal case so as to invite the consequence of termination.

It was further argued that the Single Judge had allowed an opportunity to the Union of India to establish the identity of the respondent with reference to the names of accused persons in the two criminal cases. However, the Union of India failed in establishing his identity.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the respondent preferred an appeal against his termination order, wherein he stated that due to political rivalries in the village he was also made involved in a false Criminal Case with another name by mentioning his name as Ramakrishna S/o. Satyanarayana. The respondent stated that he has only one name i.e. Gujjidi Varaprasad. Therefore, his name was also wrongly mentioned as Gujjidi Ramakrishna.

It was noted that the respondent was not aware that his name was also included in Criminal Case. The complaints also stated that he was not involved in any Criminal Case. It was further observed that the Criminal Court had acquitted him in Crime No. 05 of 2014 and in Cr.No. 70 of 2013 of Saravakota Police Station.

It was noted by the Bench that the respondent asserted that he was made involved in the false Criminal Case with another name. Therefore, it was not his case that he was not implicated but it was his case that he was implicated, but by another name.

It was held by the Division Bench that the respondent himself stated about his implication in the criminal cases, but by another name, and also about his acquittal in the said criminal cases. Therefore, there was no scope for concluding that respondent was not an accused in the criminal case. Thus, there was no occasion for the Union of India to establish that the respondent was an accused in criminal cases.

It was further held that non-mentioning of the fact of pendency of the criminal cases by the respondent was an act of suppression. Therefore, it invited the consequence in terms of the attestation form and was sufficient to deny the relief to the respondent. It was further noted that the termination was during the period of probation. Therefore, the order of termination and the order of the Appellate Authority did not require any interference.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Union of India & Others Vs. Gujjudi Varaprasad

Case No. : F.M.A. 697 of 2022

Counsel for the Appellant : Uttam Basak

Counsel for the Respondents : P.C. Das, Soma Chowdhury Bandhu, Samartha Ghosh