G George Paracken, Member (J)
In this Case the Applicant was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (âMTS for short) in the office of the Respondents, namely, the General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts Office, Delhi after having being sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 13.12.2011. Among the terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment, one of them was as under:-
âthe appointment is purely on a temporary basis and will be governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. The appointment can be terminated at any time under the said CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reasons. If you want to wish to resign the employment you will give notice in writing for a period of not less than one month of your intension of resignâ.
2. After having accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions in the said offer of appointment, the Applicant was taken on the strength of the Respondents as MTS with effect from 27.12.2011. But suddenly, vide impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 27.04.2012, the Respondents, invoking sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 gave a notice of one month and thereafter his service stood terminated. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, Applicant made a representation on 04.05.2012 stating that though no reason was stated therein but he was informed orally that the decision to terminate his service has been taken because he had furnished a wrong information in Form No.6 at the time of joining the service. He has stated that the said form was not filled up by himself because it was in English and he was not having much knowledge of English. Therefore, the said form was filled up by someone else who was not aware about the dispute in his family due to which some inadvertent mistake had happened. He has further stated that he had no intention to conceal any facts. Further, he had stated that the dispute was between his father and uncle in respect of some ancestral property and his uncle had threatened his father that he would spoil the future of his children. Hence, instead of lodging the complaint against his father, his uncle got registered a case against the Applicant and his brother Deepak Kumar on 14.3.2011. The said matter is now before the court and since it is a family dispute, there is possibility of compromise in the matter for which the family members are making efforts. Apart from this, there is no case pending against the Applicant in any court or police station and he is having clean antecedents. He has, therefore, requested the Respondents not to punish him so hard for his inadvertent mistake and he may not be terminated from service. He has also undertaken that in case he is convicted in the aforesaid case, the department could take appropriate action against him. However, the Respondents did not take any action on the aforesaid representation and have stated in the impugned order dated 27.04.2012 that his services stood terminated with effect from 27.05.2012.
3. Applicant has challenged the aforesaid impugned order of termination in this Original Application on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and discriminatory. Consequently, it was in violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and good consciences. He has also stated that he should have been given sufficient opportunity to explain his position before the said order was issued. Further, he has stated that in the impugned order, the Respondents should have disclosed the actual reasons for termination of his service and he presumed it was done because of the allegation that he had concealed the information of criminal case registered against him in his verification and attestation form. He has also explained the factual position but the respondents failed to consider the same and to cancel the impugned order. He reiterated that the reason for non-furnishing of information about the criminal case was that he had not filled up the form himself and got filled the same by someone else because he did not have the knowledge of English and the person who filled the form did not have the knowledge of dispute in the family. Merely registration of a criminal case and that too due to some personal grudges, does not, ipso facto, renders a candidate unsuitable and undesirable for the Government employment.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another 2012 (6) SCC 228 wherein it has been held that institution of a criminal case under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 and Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 means taking cognizance of offence and not mere presentation of charge-sheet by investigating agency.
5. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Government of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. Amit Kumar (W.P. No. 8929/2009) decided on 12.7.2010. According to the High Court merely because a complaint has been filed against an incumbent by arraying him as an accused even though he is neither arrested nor summoned/tried by the concerned Court, and the case comes to an end either by way of withdrawal of the case or on the basis of a final report filed by the police after investigation, to presume that the incumbent was involved in that case would be a misnomer of justice and there is nothing on record to show that he was aware of the pendency of the FIR at the time when he filed his attestation form/undertaking. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as follows:-
â12. It is thus apparent that the respondent was neither arrested in the aforesaid case nor he was summoned to face the trial. Thus, submissions made by the respondent to the effect that he had not suppressed any material fact while submitting attestation form/undertaking at the time of his appointment as Constable in Delhi Police were rightly accepted by the Tribunal.
13. Even otherwise, merely because a complaint has been filed against an incumbent by arraying him as an accused even though he is neither arrested nor summoned/tried by the concerned Court, and the case comes to an end either by way of withdrawal of the case or on the basis of a final report filed by the police after investigation, to presume that the incumbent was involved in that case would be a misnomer of justice and there is nothing on record to show that he was aware of the pendency of the FIR at the time when he filed his attestation form/undertaking. In this regard, it would be of relevance to take note of the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Purshottam Lal Kaushik, AIR 1981 SC 547, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has discussed the effect of acquittal of an accused in a criminal case. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:-
âBefore examining the facts and ratio of Mani Lal's case [1971]1SCR798 it will be worthwhile to notice here a general principle of criminal law bearing on this issue. This principle as re iterated by this Court in Dilip Kumar Sharma's case (at p. 289) 1976 CriLJ184 is as follows:
An order of acquittal particularly one passed on merits wipes off the conviction and sentence for all purposes, and as effectively as if it had never been passed. An order of acquittal annulling or voiding a conviction operates from nativity. As Kelson puts it, "it is a true annulment, an annulment with retroactive force". So when the conviction (for the offence) was quashed by the High Court (in appeal)... 'it killed the conviction not then, but performed the formal obsequies of the order which had died at birth.â
14. In the facts of this case, when it is apparent that the respondent was neither arrested nor summoned/tried for his involvement in FIR No.88/2001, and the case was closed by accepting the final report submitted by the police by the concerned Magistrate, wipes out even registration of the FIR itself for all purposes. This tantamounts to annulment of the FIR with retroactive force, i.e., as if it was never registered. In such a case to say that the respondent was involved in that case and suppressed this fact without anything on record to show that he ever came to know about the pendency of that matter or that was with a view to hide his involvement in a case which stood closed, would be travesty of justice. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissedâ.
6. Similarly, in Government of NCT of Delhi and Others Vs. Jitender Kumar (W.P. No. 8385/2002) decided on 20.12.2007, Honble High Court of Delhi held that where the offence with which the candidate was charged was petty offence not involving moral turpitude and it has resulted in acquittal as well and going by the petty nature of the offence if such a factor is not material enough to deny appointment to a candidate, non-disclosure thereof shall not be a ground to terminate his services and had observed as follows:-
â11. We may remark here that where the case is pending at the time of filling up of the form, position would be different and in case a candidate conceals such an information or provides wrong information, the candidature or even the appointment can be cancelled {See - Sanjay Kumar Bajpai v. Union of India, 1997 II AD SC 704}. Similarly, where the prosecution, though resulted in acquittal, was for an offence which otherwise involves moral turpitude, it may be necessary to mention particulars of such a case as that may be a relevant consideration to adjudge the conduct or character of a candidate to be appointed to a service even when such a prosecution resulted in acquittal, inasmuch as, it would provide information about the antecedents of the candidate {See - Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, JT 1996 (10) SC 34}. However, where the offence with which the candidate was charged was petty offence not involving moral turpitude and it has resulted in acquittal as well and going by the petty nature of the offence if such a factor is not material enough to deny appointment to a candidate, non-disclosure thereof shall not be a ground to terminate his servicesâ.
7. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011 (4) SCC 644 wherein it was held that if the alleged involvement of the candidate was not in any serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, a lenient view should be taken. The relevant post of the said judgment is as under:-
â8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:-
"I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed." [Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114]
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
13. For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force and it is dismissed. No costsâ.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.7748/2012 - Pintu Singh Yadav VS. UOI and Others decided on 13.12.2012. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
â2. With respect to an FIR lodged on September 30, 2007 by one Baily Dev, along with his brothers and father, the petitioner was named as an accused for having committed offences punishable under Section 323/325/504/506(2)/34 IPC. After investigation was over a challan was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate resulting in Crl. Case No.5648/2008 being taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. Applying for the post of Constable (Driver) in CISF on January 1, 2011, the petitioner cleared the recruitment process resulting in letter offering appointment being issued to him on December 16, 2011.
4. While filling the application form, the petitioner admittedly withheld information asked for having a bearing on his character verification i.e. the information sought: Whether the applicant was an accused before any Court? But when letter offering appointment was issued and required to fill up the verification roll, the petitioner duly intimated and supplied the documents informing of his being an accused.
5. The petitioner stood acquitted on January 12, 2012 and he informed even said fact to the department, but unfortunately vide impugned order dated January 23, 2012 his services were terminated inasmuch as letter offering appointment was cancelled.
6. As per the petitioner he was trapped in a false case.
7. But the allegation against the petitioner, urges learned counsel for the respondent, is of withholding relevant information when he applied for the job.
8. It is true that while applying for the job the petitioner withheld a relevant information, but he volunteered the same before he joined and after he was issued offering appointment.
9. The facts of the instant case are identical to the ones which were considered by the Supreme Court in CA No.1430/207 Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar decided on March 1, 2011, where the Supreme Court highlighted that young people often commit indiscretions because youth will always be youth and young people are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people do and hence the judicial approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than brand them as criminals for rest of their life; modern approach is to reform a person instead of branding the person as a criminal all his life. In said case Sandeep Kumar was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC.
10. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, deciding WP(C) No.8223/2011 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police, as per decision dated November 22,2011 quashed similar order passed pertaining to Rajesh Kumar who was accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 323/324/34 IPC.
XXX XXX XXX
13. For parity of reasoning in Sandeep Kumars case (supra) and Rajesh Kumars case (supra) we dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned order dated January 23, 2012 and direct petitioner to be reinstated in service but without any back-wages, which we deny for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner approaching us after over 10 months and secondly for the reason, even the petitioner is at fault by withholding an information which had a bearing on his character verification. Save and except denial of back-wages, the petitioner would be entitled to all other consequential benefits such as seniority and service to be reckoned for purposes of pension and notional increment.
14. No costsâ.
9. Further, he has relied upon the decision in TA 955/2009 - Ram Niwas Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi wherein it was held that ânon-furnishing the detail of a criminal case in employment form is not a concealment and the same is only a case of mistaken impression. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.2417/2010 decided on 27.07.2010.
10. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Government of NCT of Delhi and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar, Dherender Kumar and Raja Ram 1989 (2012) DLT 261 (DB). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
â7. By virtue of the impugned orders, the Tribunal, in each of these matters, set aside the orders of termination following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011 (4) SCC 644 as also the decision of this court in the case of Rajesh Kumar in W.P. (C) 8223/2011 decided on 22.11.2011. 8. We have also considered the very same aspect in details, recently in the case of Devender Kumar Yadav Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another (WP (C) 8731/2011, decided on 30.03.2012). In that decision, we had considered the decision of Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra).â
XXX XXX XXX
10. The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) as also by us in Devender Kumar Yadav (supra) and the other decisions considered therein.
11. Consequently, we uphold the orders of the Tribunal which are impugned in these petitions.
12. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. However, we make it clear that the respondents when they are taken back in service would not be entitled to any back wages for the period they remained out of service. The petitioners are granted three weeks time to comply with the orders.â
11. The learned for the Applicant has also relied upon the judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi and Another Vs. Robin Singh 171 (2010) 705 DB the issue discussed by Honble Delhi High Court in very detailed and the Honble Court came to the conclusion that every wrong information may not necessarily be deception. A person may be wrong but under the bona fide belief that he is right, he furnishes the information as this would not be deception.
12. The learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the order of a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1796/2012 - Nitin Kumar Dabas Vs. U.O.I. and Another. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
â 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Naresh Kaushik and the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Subhash Gosain. It is undisputed fact that the applicant was involved in two criminal cases but they were not of very serious nature. It is also a fact that he has concealed those facts and the respondents came to know about them only on the verification report submitted by the police authorities after verification of his character and antecedents. The crucial question is whether just because the applicant has concealed those facts, it could be held that he is unsuitable to be retained in service. As seen from the FIR No.448/2004, he was charged under Sections 323/341/509 IPC. The said sections read as under:
âSection 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 341. Punishment for wrongful  restraint.
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, of that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
9. Further, as seen from the FIR No. 62/2008, he was charged under Sections 376/216/506/34 IPC. The said sections read as under:
âSection 376. Punishment for rape
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven yearsâ.
Section 506. Punishment for criminal  intimidation
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation  shall be punished with imprison-ment of either  description for a term which may extend to two years,  or with fine, or with both.
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in  furtherance of common intention.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him aloneâ.
10. It is seen from the record that in the first case, the applicant being an accused was the brother of the complainant. During the pendency of the case, both the parties have decided to settle the matter and accordingly the case was compounded. In the second case, the ASJ himself stated that the applicant was not involved in the case at all. Therefore, both the cases registered against him are not at all of very serious nature. But at the same time, the fact remains that he has not disclosed those facts in spite of the fact that there was a requirement to do so in the attestation form.
11. Now the question is whether the applicant being a young person can be discarded and declared unfit for employment under the Government for all his life time. The approach in such cases is more liberal and lenient by the courts. In the case of Commr. Of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 1430 of 2007), the respondent Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the year 1999. In the application form against Column No. 12 (a) which says âHave you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from any Examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution, he gave the answer `No. As in the present case, the candidature of the respondent Sandeep Kumar was cancelled for concealment of facts. However, the Apex Court considered the fact that the incident in the said case happened when the respondent was about 20 years of age and at that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. The relevant part of the said order is as under:
âWe respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter.
When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people.
Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.â
12. Further, in the case of Pawan Kumar Versus State of Haryana (1996 (4) SCC 17), the Honble Apex Court has observed as under:
âBefore concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarilyâ.
12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, though there was concealment of the factum of his involvement in the aforesaid two criminal cases in the attestation form, yet it alone does not constitute the reason for his termination from service. We, therefore, allow this O.A and quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 27.04.2012. Resultantly, the applicant shall be reinstated in service immediately but in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Of course, the applicant shall be careful in future career so that he shall not give any other opportunity to the respondents to accuse him of any such of concealment or untrustworthy action. There shall be no order as to costsâ.
13. Respondents in their reply have submitted that the requisite form furnished to the Applicant is drafted in simple English and easily understandable with educational qualification possessed by the Applicant. The said form also contained a warning that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in this form would be a disqualification and likely to render candidate unfit for employment under Government. But in spite of that warning, the Applicant willfully mentioned âNo in para 12(i)(b) thereby giving false information. The fact was revealed when police verification report was received from DCP, Special Branch, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi vide his letter dated 22.03.2012 that FIR was registered in Khanjawala Police Station against the Applicant. In the light of the above fact, the Applicant was served with notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and accordingly he stood terminated from service.
14. The learned counsel for the Respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.29899 of 1992 - S.C. Patairiya Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.09.2004. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
â10. In the instant case the court has to be satisfied as to what is the legally justiciable right of the petitioner which has been infringed and for which the petitioner can resort to the disciplinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Purshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. U.O.I., AIR 1958 SC 36, has held that âA person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier and further held that âa Government servant holding a post temporarily does not have niy right to hold the said post. In R.K. Mishra Vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation, AIR 1987 SC 2408, the Supreme Court has also taken the same view.
11. A temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his service is liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination of under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. Similarly in Triveni Shanker Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIT 1982 SC 46; Commissioner of Food and Supply Vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena, 1994 (5) SCC 177; Ram Chandra Tripathi Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others, 1994(2) JT 84; Madhya Pradesh Hasth Shilp Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Devendra Kumar Jain and Another, 1995(1) SCC 638 and Kaushal Kishore Shuka (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice, has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his service is dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal rightâ.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Avadh Kaushik and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri Subhash Gosain. We have also perused the copies of the records available in this case file. No doubt the facts in this case are almost similar to those in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra). In fact the dispute in which the applicant is involved is the one between his own uncle and himself and his brother in respect of some family property. On the basis of his uncles complaint against him and his brother, the police has registered FIR No.64/2011 u/s 341/323/506/34 IPC PS Kanjwala, Delhi and the consequential criminal case initiated against them is pending trial before the court. Offence under Section 341 IPC is âwrong restraining any person. Section 323 IPC deals with âvoluntary causing hurt. Section 506 IPC deals with âcriminal intimidation. Section 34 IP deals with âacts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. None of them are serious offences which involves moral turpitude. They also do not fall within the category of rape, murder, dacoity etc. as observed in Sandeep Kumars case (supra). But in this case the Applicant is still facing the trial. Unless, he is acquitted in the aforesaid case, he cannot be reappointed. Moreover, the representation made by the Applicant against the impugned notice for termination dated 27.04.2012 has become infructuous as the same has been rejected by the Respondents vide its subsequent letter No. 23/24.05.2013 during the pendency of this OA. Thus the Applicant stands terminated from service on 27.04.2012. He has also not challenged the aforesaid order.
16. In the above facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned show cause notice dated 27.04.2012. Consequently, this OA is dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.