The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the Union of India and others filed Writ Appeal No.
Hence, the Union of India and others have filed this appeal by special leave challenging the companyrectness and validity of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The learned Single Judge, however, while allowing the writ petition of the respondent, reserved liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent for alleged misconduct as revealed in the order of the appellate authority.
91/90 dated 24.12.1990 was registered against the respondent and others under Sections 148/149/380/506 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellants started the process of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent in terms of the relevant service rules.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Civil Rule No.
The respondent, at the time of enrolment in CRPF, did number disclose the said fact in companyumn No.
91 dated 24.12.1990 for offences under Sections 148/149/380 and 436, IPC.
88/2002 dismissing the appeal of the Union of India and Others against the order dated 01.08.2001 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Civil Rule No.
Undisputedly, the above extracted order was passed by the companypetent authority under Rule 5 1 of CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965, as the respondent was a temporary employee and was number a companyfirmed Constable.
139/1996.
88/2002 which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench by impugned judgment by holding that the order of termination was passed on alleged misconduct as a foundation number motive and as such the same cannot be treated as an order of simplicitor under Rules, 1965.
The respondent has remained ex parte.
On receipt of the reply from the District Magistrate cum Collector, the Commandant 9th Batallion CRPF vide order dated 23.06.1994 in purported exercise of the power under Rule 5 1 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Services Rules, 1965 terminated the services of the respondent.
The District Magistrate cum Collector West Tripura by its letter dated 03.06.1994 informed the appellants that the respondent along with six others was charge sheeted by Sonamura Police Station Case No.
12 a and b of Verification Roll of CRPF see Rule 14 B .
The District Magistrate cum Collector informed the Additional DIG, Group Centre CRPF, Bhubaneshwar Orissa by registered post letter dated 03.06.1994, that as per the report submitted by OIC Melaghar Police Station, the Police Case No.
Thereafter, the appellants started the process of verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent from civil authorities as required under the provisions of the relevant rules.
139/1996 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 01.08.2001 holding that the order of termination of the respondent was passed on alleged misconduct and the same companyld number be treated as an order simplicitor companyered by the CCS Temporary Services Rules, 1965.
It is number in dispute that in terms of clause 12 a of the CRPF see Rule 14 B Verification Roll Annexure P 2 the respondent was under obligation to inform the appellants in regard to the pendency of the criminal case against him.
The IGP N S, having heard the respondent and having examined and verified the record, has found numbersubstance in the defence of the respondent and by reasoned order dated 12.07.1995 rejected the appeal.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Leave granted.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the writ petitioner respondent herein was enrolled as Constable on 08.11.1991 in Central Reserve Police Force for short the CRPF .
In the absence of the respondent, we have heard the learned companynsel for the appellants and with his assistance perused the entire material on record.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 23.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati Bench at Agartala in Writ Appeal No.
