Case Background
The case arose out of recruitment to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). An advertisement was issued by the CRPF authorities inviting applications for a post.
The petitioner applied for the advertised post and was selected. He was appointed on 15.05.2010.
After his enrollment in service, he was required to fill CRPF Form No. 25, which related to character and antecedent verification. The petitioner submitted this form on 09.06.2010, declaring that no criminal case was pending against him.
However, a criminal case had already been instituted against him, and he had moved for anticipatory bail on 11.03.2010. This was prior to the date of filling up the verification form.
On 12.01.2010, the Commandant (respondent no. 4) passed an order terminating the petitioner’s services under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (CCS Rules, 1965).
The petitioner initially challenged this termination order in CWJC No. 2236 of 2012 before the Patna High Court. That writ petition was withdrawn on 03.02.2012, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Rule 5(2)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The High Court at that time also directed that the petitioner’s application be disposed of within six weeks.
In terms of that liberty, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate authority under Rule 5(2)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The appellate authority rejected his appeal by order dated 26.04.2012.
After these orders against him, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court again by filing the present writ petition in 2012, challenging the orders dated 12.01.2012 and 26.04.2012. During arguments, it was also stated on his behalf that he had been acquitted in the criminal case in 2016.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, heard the matter on 22.04.2024. The petitioner was represented by his counsel, and the Union of India was represented by the Central Government Counsel.
The core of the dispute was whether the termination of a temporary CRPF recruit under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was valid when the recruit had allegedly suppressed the fact of a pending criminal case in the character verification form.
The petitioner’s side explained how he came to be appointed after a recruitment process and how he submitted Form No. 25 on 09.06.2010. In that form, he had declared that there was no criminal case pending against him.
According to the petitioner, on the date of filling the character and antecedent form he did not have prior knowledge about any criminal case against him. It was argued that unexpectedly, the Commandant (respondent no. 4) issued the termination order dated 12.01.2010 under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
The judgment reproduces Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. This provision states that the services of a temporary government servant are liable to termination at any time by a written notice either by the government servant or by the appointing authority. The notice period shall be one month, but the services may also be terminated forthwith, in which case the employee is entitled to pay and allowances for the notice period.
The Rule also lays down the procedure for service of notice: first by personal delivery, then by registered post with acknowledgment due if personal service is not possible, and finally by publication in the Official Gazette if registered post is returned unserved.
The earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 2236 of 2012) and its withdrawal were noted. The Court recorded that the petitioner was permitted to approach the appellate authority under Rule 5(2)(a), and that the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 26.04.2012.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case in 2016. However, the judgment does not record any detailed argument on how this later acquittal should affect the termination order passed in 2010 and upheld in 2012.
On the other side, the Union of India filed a counter-affidavit. In it, they stated that the petitioner had indeed filled up the character/criminal verification form on 09.06.2010, and by that time, he was fully aware that a criminal case was pending against him.
The counter-affidavit specifically pointed out that the petitioner had already approached a competent court for anticipatory bail on 11.03.2010. This date is clearly before 09.06.2010, when he declared in Form No. 25 that no criminal case was pending.
On this basis, the respondents argued that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of the pending criminal case, despite being aware of it and having taken legal steps in that case. They maintained that termination of his temporary service under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was lawful and proper, and that the appellate authority rightly affirmed it on 26.04.2012.
They also contended that there was no infirmity in the orders challenged in the writ petition.
The Court then examined the material and drew its conclusion. It recorded that, in view of the facts presented, the petitioner had suppressed the fact about his involvement in the criminal case in the concerned column of the verification roll in CRPF Form No. 25.
The judgment further notes that the verification roll itself carried a warning. That warning stated that furnishing false information or suppressing any factual information in the verification roll would amount to a disqualification.
On this basis, the Court held that the authority had rightly terminated the services of the petitioner. The focus was not on whether ultimately the petitioner was convicted or acquitted, but on the suppression of material information at the time of filling the verification form.
The Court did not find any fault in the exercise of power under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, nor did it find any illegality in the appellate order passed under Rule 5(2)(a).
Ultimately, the Patna High Court concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed. No relief was granted to the petitioner in respect of his termination from CRPF service.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for candidates and employees in government and uniformed services, especially those on temporary or probationary posts.
The Patna High Court has underlined that when a person fills a verification form relating to character and criminal antecedents, all information must be given truthfully. If a criminal case is pending and the person has already sought anticipatory bail, then stating “no case pending” amounts to suppression.
The Court has also reinforced that when a verification form clearly warns that false information or suppression will be treated as a disqualification, the appointing authority is justified in terminating service if such suppression is discovered.
This applies even where the person is later acquitted. The judgment shows that the key question is honesty at the time of appointment and verification, not just the final outcome of the criminal case.
For temporary government servants, this decision shows how wide the power under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 can be, particularly where there is lack of candour in disclosure of criminal antecedents.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the termination of a temporary CRPF recruit under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on the ground of suppression of a pending criminal case in the verification form, was valid.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of a pending criminal case in CRPF Form No. 25 despite a clear warning that false or suppressed information would be a disqualification, and therefore the termination and appellate order were valid and required no interference.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not record any judicial precedents or earlier cases being cited or relied upon by the Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10878 of 2012
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Mahto vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 26
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Date of Judgment: 22-04-2024
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
- For the Union of India: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Central Government Counsel (CGC)
Respondents: Union of India and CRPF authorities, including the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna; Director General of Police, G C- Mze, CRPF, Muzaffarpur; Director General of Police, G C, M K I, CRPF, Mokamaghat; and Commandant-36 Bn, CRPF, Khonsa, Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging termination of temporary service and appellate rejection under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
Link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTA4NzgjMjAxMiMxI04=-A8f7oNbg–am1–kE=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
