ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
This writ petition is filed for a writ or order or direction more in the nature of a Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent discharging the petitioner from the training vide proceedings – Force Order No. 23/2000 (X/P.564/Inl/Trg/dt No. 31st) dated 22-2-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Constable with all benefits forthwith and to pass such other suitable orders.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The writ petitioner was the student of Sri Chennabasaveswara Composite Junior College, Aralikatti from 19-6-1995 to 10-4-1997 and he left the college and was working as a clerk from 5-1-1998 to 25-6-1999 in M/s. Mailarling Industries at Adargunchi. It is further stated that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the Employment Notification No. 1 of 1998 and was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee constituted by the first respondent and by virtue of the letter dated 25-6-1999, the petitioner has to undergo training in the 2nd respondent’s Training Centre for a period of nine months. It is further stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hubli Rural had given a certificate on 19-6-1999 to the effect that there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner in the police records. While joining at the training centre, Moulalai on 30-6-1999, respondent No. 2 had taken the petitioner’s signature in the attestation form to the effect that ” I have never been prosecuted, kept under detention or fined/ convicted by a Court of law of any offence or debarred or disqualified by any Police/ Railway Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections. There is no case pending against the petitioner in any Court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form”. It is further stated that in the petitioner’s village ‘B’ Aralikatti on 10-3-1999 there were some disturbances in the college gathering of the aforesaid college when some of the students pelted small stones along with money at the girls who were dancing on the stage. It is further stated that Sri Mohd. Sab Hajara Sab Kundgole, Panchayat Chairman of Aralikatti village who has been on inimical terms with the petitioner’s family had involved the petitioner in a criminal case and on the request of the Police Inspector, Hubli, the Taluq Magistrate has initiated proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the villagers including the petitioner. The Taluq Magistrate had not taken any security bond from the petitioner inasmuch as he was not there in the village. The FIR No. 48 of 1998 was later numbered as CC No. 246/98-99 in which the proceedings were dropped by the Taluq Magistrate on 29-8-1998. It is further stated that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had been challenged by certain persons in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Dharwad in Crl.R.P. No. 162 of 1998 in which stay was granted on 8-9-1998. The petitioner came to know that he was also implicated in Crime Nos. 49 and 50 of 1998, which were numbered as CC Nos. 1300 and 1301 of 1998 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hubli in which the petitioner was acquitted. It is further stated that the first respondent had passed the discharge order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner vide Force Order dated 22-2-2000 on the ground that the petitioner had given false declaration under Rule 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and hence the present writ petition claiming the reliefs stated supra.
3. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying several of the allegations and narrating the brief facts of the case as stated in paras 4 to 9 of the counter-affidavit. The relevant portion is as under;
“The petitioner Channa Basappa V. Bangari was selected for the post of Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force Constable (men) in the time-scale of pay of 3050-4590 (RSRP) in the recruitment held against Employment Notice No. 1/98 dt. 15-10-98 of South Central Railway. On being declared medically fit for B.1 category in Physical fitness, the petitioner was directed for initial training of Railway Protection Force Constable recruits which commenced from 7-6-1999 at Railway Protection Force Training Centre/Moula Ali, vide letter No. X/P.564/Vol.IX dated 25-6-1999. The duration of training was 9 months. When the petitioner was directed for initial training, the petitioner was advised vide letter No. X/P.564/Vol.IX dated 21-5-1999 that his candidature was purely provisional and subject to character and antecedent verification and successful completion of training, he was also advised that his candidature would be cancelled immediately, if character and antecedents verification report was against him or if the undertaking declared by him was false/misleading/incorrect. The petitioner was supplied with an undertaking regarding character and antecedents, which he filled up and submitted to the respondent.
The petitioner filled the Attestation Form wherein he mentioned against item 12 as ‘NO’. This clearly shows that the petitioner declared that he had never been prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law of any offence. The petitioner also declared in the Attestation Form undertaken at the time of reporting for initial Training that he had never been prosecuted, kept under detention or fined/ convicted by a Court of law of any offence. He also declared that there was no case pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling the attestation form and that in case his statement of declaration on joining or the attestation form was found false/ misleading he was liable to be discharged without any notice or assigning any reasons at any time during his service. The petitioner also declared on joining that he was not involved in any criminal case or facing any Civil Court case. On an undertaking the Attestation form and declaration on joining, the petitioner was directed for initial training course.Whereas the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Dharwad District, Dharwad (Karnataka) informed vide letter No. MAG:IV:VER:CR-80; 99-2000 dated 23/27-12-1999 that the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad District, Dharwad reported that a case under 107 Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioner in Hubli Rural Police Station. The case was enquired by the Taluka Magistrate, Hubli in CC No. 246/98-99 and was dropped on 18-9-1998. The Inspector of Police, Hubli Rural Police Station has also informed vide his Lr. No. 297/2000 dated 4-2-2000 that the petitioner Channa Basappa V. Bangari was also involved in Rural Police Station Cr. No. 49/98 and 50/98 Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 504 r/w 149 IPC. Both the cases are pending before the 1st JMFC Court, Hubli vide CC. No. 1300/98 and 1301/98. The petitioner did not reveal this fact in the attestation form or declaration on joining. As the petitioner gave false declaration that he was not involved in any criminal case at the time of his joining for training, he was discharged from training for false declaration vide F.O. No. 24/2000 dated 22-2-2000.”
4. It is further stated that in the Attestation form of the Character and antecedents, the petitioner mentioned ‘Nil’ against item No. 12 whereas the District Magistrate informed vide letter dated 27-12-1999 that a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was filed against the petitioner in Hubli Police Station. The case was enquired by the Taluk Magistrate, Hubli in CC No. 246 of 1998-99 and was dropped on 18-9-1998. The Police Inspector, Hubli Rural Police Station also informed vide his Lr. No. 297/2000 dated 4-2-2000 that the petitioner was also involved in Cr. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1998 under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the cases are pending before the 1st JMFC Court, Hubli vide CC. No. 1300/98 and 1301/98. Thus, it is clearly evident that the petitioner gave false declaration. It is also further stated that under Rule 67(2) of the Rules, the petitioner is not required to be given another opportunity and no notice is required to be issued in the case of the petitioner as he was neither appointed as a Regular Constable in the department nor he is a probationer. No doubt, several other grounds have also been raised in the counter-affidavit narrating as to why the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for.
5. Sri J.M. Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the interpretation of Rule 67(2) is not in the correct perspective and the giving of opportunity i.e., observance of principles of natural justice should be taken as implicit since this is a matter where a right had accrued to the writ petitioner and the discharge order involves serious consequences and hence without giving such opportunity making an order of discharge which is impugned in the writ petition is bad in law. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to Rules 28 and 52 of the Rules and had submitted that the authorities who furnished the information are not the competent persons to furnish such information and on this ground also, the impugned order is not sustainable. The learned counsel had also justified the non-furnishing of information because of the absence of knowledge to the writ petitioner in this regard and inasmuch as it was a general affair concerned with the village as such and at the best it can be a bona fide mistake and there was no intention or omission on the part of the writ petitioner in not mentioning the said particulars and hence in any view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Khama Ram Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 702 and on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, CGIT, AIR 1999 SC 94 and in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, . The learned counsel had drawn my attention to several of the proceedings also in this regard.
6. Sri Sanghi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents on the other hand had contended that what happened subsequent to the criminal cases is of no consequence and the respondents are more concerned with the non-furnishing of the information by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that it is a matter concerned with the Railway Protection Force and hence a person seeking employment in such a force is expected to disclose all the particulars and with that object only these columns are prescribed and the non-mentioning of those cases will definitely amount to suppression of material facts and hence the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
7. The learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order of discharge is made at the earliest point of time and hence it need not be interfered with. Further, the learned counsel had also drawn my attention to Rules 67(2) and 52 of the Rules and had contended that in the light of the specific provision there is no question of giving any opportunity in this regard and that under a particular rule there can be specific exclusion of giving an opportunity and it is a case where giving opportunity is not contemplated and hence the impugned order cannot be faulted on that ground. The learned counsel had also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. A. Nagamalleshwar Rao, AIR 1998 SC 111 and also on M. Mohmood v. District & Session Judge, Nalgonda & HC of A.P., (D.B.).
8. Heard both the sides and perused the material available on record.
9. The impugned order reads as follows;
“Sri Channabasappa V. Bangari, Con. recruit (Chest No. 302) undergoing initial training at RPF/Training Centre, Moula-Ali w.e.f. 30-6-1999 has given false declaration while joining Training, suppressing his involvement in a criminal case, whereas it is reported by the Inspector of Police, Hubli Rural Police Station, Hubli (Karnataka State) that he not only underwent trial Under Section 107 Cr.P.C. but is also facing trial in two cases vide Cr. No. 49/98 and Crime No. 50/98 Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 504 of Hubli Rural Police Station.
As such he is hereby discharged from training with immediate effect under Rule 67.2 of RPF Rules, 1987.”
10. It is not in dispute that though columns are prescribed, the writ petitioner had not furnished the necessary information. Whatever may be the reason for non-furnishing of the information, the fact remains that there is omission on the part of the writ petitioner in not furnishing all the information. No doubt, the learned Standing Counsel had submitted that it cannot be said that the writ petitioner has no knowledge about this aspect since a criminal petition also was filed in this regard before the Sessions Court, Dharwad viz., Crl. R.C. No. 162 of 1998. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to go into all these factual aspects at this stage. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner is expected to furnish all the details. But, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, which had been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it may be that the writ petitioner thought that it is not necessary to furnish that information since it is a general dispute relating to the village. In fitness of things the writ petitioner should have been more careful and cautious in filling up the columns. The learned counsel had placed reliance on the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court, cited supra to show that under certain circumstances when a particular omission or suppression is not such a material thing, on that ground a grave action of this nature cannot be initiated. However, on the contrary, Sri Sanghi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra and contended that this will definitely amount to serious suppression of facts and in such a case there is no question of taking any sympathetic view. The learned counsel also stressed that if such things are permitted, the standard and morale of the force will be affected. Rule 28 of the Rules deals with the powers of Director General to issue Directives which reads as under:
“The Director General may, from time to time, issue such directions in the form of Directives, relating to the enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Act and these rules, as he may think necessary and the superior officers and enrolled members of the Force shall be governed by such ” Directives ” in the performance and discharge of their duties.”
Rule 52 of the Rules deals with verification, which is as under:
52.1. As soon as a recruit is selected but before he is formally appointed to the Force, his character and antecedents shall be got verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.
52.2. Where after verification, a recruit is not found suitable for the Force, he shall not be appointed as a member of the Force.”
The other relevant Rule is Rule 67 dealing with disciplinary control which reads as follows;
“67.1. The staff and trainees at any thing institution of the Force, shall so long as they are at such institution or undergoing practical training at some other place, be under disciplinary control of the Principal of that training institution.
67.2. A direct recruit selected for being appointed as enrolled member, till such time he is not formally appointed to the Force; is liable to be discharged at any stage if the Chief Security Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing, deems it fit so to do in the interest of the Force.”
11. It is no doubt true that Rule 67(2) specifies that a direct recruit selected for being appointed as enrolled member till such time he is not formerly appointed to the Force is liable to be discharged at any time, if the Chief Security Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing deems it fit so to do in the interest of the force. As can be seen from the impugned order, I am of the opinion that Rule 67(2) so far as it relates “for reasons to be recorded in writing” had not been satisfied. No doubt, some reference had been made relating to the criminal cases. Be that as it may, when reasons are to be recorded, I am of the opinion that it is always desirable that the affected party be given an opportunity of hearing since this is a matter involving serious civil consequences and the Apex Court had repeatedly held that whether a rule specifically and explicitly contemplates the issuance of notice or giving of opportunity or not, the Rules of Principles of natural justice are to be observed. I am of the considered opinion that whatever may be the other factual aspects, since several contentions have been raised that the procedure in securing the alleged information also had not been properly done in accordance with Rules, it is a matter where a further opportunity is to be given to the writ petitioner to explain the circumstances and then after considering the same, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders in this regard. The writ petitioner is bound to succeed to this limited extent only and no further relief can be granted at this stage.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.