Fri. Nov 27th, 2020

Haseen vs 1. Union Of India & Ors. on 23 October, 2020

2 min read

2. The reasons for termination of the services of the petitioner are best
recorded in the show cause notice dated 24th April, 2019 [Annexure P-8 to
the petition] issued to the petitioner, inter alia recording that, (i) the
petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the respondents SSB on
15th February, 2013 inter alia on the conditions that the verification of

W.P.(C) 8123/2020 Page 1 of 5
character and antecedents of the petitioner would be carried out from the
concerned District Administration immediately after joining the service and
that if any declaration given or information furnished by the petitioner for
recruitment was found to be false or to have been wilfully suppressed, the
services of the petitioner shall be liable to be terminated; (ii) a
Memorandum dated 27th June, 2018 was received from the respondents No.
2 and 4 Staff Selection Commission (SSC), to initiate administrative action
against the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No.48354/2017 titled Ajit Singh & 54 Others Vs. Union of
India & Ors.; (iii) it had been informed that the petitioner had less marks in
his category and vacancy type and was thus not entitled to be appointed and
his candidature should be cancelled; (iv) a Court of Inquiry was ordered and
a detailed inquiry to investigate the matter to find out the facts was
conducted; (v) the Court of Inquiry submitted a report on 23 rd August,
2018, which was put up before the Disciplinary Authority on 28th August,
2018; (vi) the summary trial was held and concluded; (vii) the petitioner, in
his application form (pursuant to notification dated 5th February, 2011 of
the examination of the year 2011 and pursuant to which the petitioner was
appointed) had claimed to be an Other Backward Class from the hill district
of U.P. and submitted an OBC Certificate and was found to have obtained
higher marks than the other OBC candidates and was selected; (viii) the
petitioner had not been declared qualified in the first result declared on 28th
November, 2011 but was declared qualified in the revised result declared on
6th July, 2012 in OBC category of Border Area of Uttar Pradesh (UP) State
as filled by him in his application form; (ix) later on, it was noticed that the
W.P.(C) 8123/2020 Page 2 of 5
petitioner does not belong to the border district of State of UP and
accordingly action against him was initiated; (x) the domicile district of the
petitioner as per the Domicile Certificate produced by the petitioner was not
covered under the Border District of UP; (xi) the petitioner was thus to be
not treated as qualified under the general vacancy of UP due to less marks;

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply