Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 57 (JK)

Raj Kumar v. Union Of India

2004-03-18

V.K.JHANJI

body2004
In the recruitment drive by the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF), petitioner came to be selected on 3.5.2002 against an existing vacancy of Safai Karamchari under GC CRPF, Jammu, and came to be allotted No. 025071186. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.4.2003 issued by Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF, Jammu, services of the petitioner, in pursuance of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, came to be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the notice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, petitioner availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Inspector General CRPF for setting aside order dated 3.4.2003, but the appellate authority did not take any contrary view and vide order dated 4.7.2003, rejected the appeal. Petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders dated 3.4.2003 and 4.7.2003 in the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents were not justified in taking resort to Central Civil Services (Temporary) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965), as these rules are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. His further case is that his appointment being on substantive basis against a substantive vacancy, it could not be terminated treating him as a temporary employee, while taking resort to the Rules of 1965. It is also stated that petitioner being a member of the Force could be punished only in terms of Section 9, 10 and 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949), and since procedure provided for taking disciplinary action has not been followed, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that as a result of enrolement in the CRPF, petitioner was directed to submit/ fill up the verification roll in CRP Form No. 25. The said form was forwarded to the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu, for verifying the character and antecedents of the petitioner, which was a pre-requisite for any government job. The said form was forwarded to the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu, for verifying the character and antecedents of the petitioner, which was a pre-requisite for any government job. On verification, the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu, vide his letter dated 17.4.2003 intimated that the petitioner was involved in FIR No. 115/-1 under section 294 RPC registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, and a challan in this regard was produced on 1.8.2001 in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate Kathua, which was still under trial. Further according to respondents, petitioner while furnishing details in the verification roll submitted false information and concealed the fact that he was challaned and a criminal case is pending against him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, This fact came to be revealed only on verification of his character and antecedents by the Additional Director General CID J&K Jammu and, therefore, one months notice of termination was served on the petitioner and on completion of the said period of one month, his services stood automatically terminated. Respondents also state that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.4.2003 has rightly been rejected as the petitioner at the time of appointment had suppressed and concealed the fact regarding pendency of criminal case against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated despite it was brought to the notice of the respondents that vide judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua, petitioner has been acquitted in challan filed under FIR No,. 115/2001. Learned counsel further submitted that the very ground on which respondents proceeded against the petitioner having been rendered to be baseless, as such any action taken by the respondents on the basis of the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. It was also submitted that while terminating the services of the petitioners by the respondents, procedure established under law had to be adopted/followed by holding departmental inquiry and since this has not been done, the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner cited Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3300. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner cited Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3300. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that services of the petitioner were terminated, upon his concealment and suppression of material fact/information in regard to pendency of a criminal case against him in the court at Kathua. It was mandatory for the petitioner to furnish full and correct information qua his character and antecedents and by withholding the material information of pendency of a criminal case against him, rendered him liable to termination. It was also submitted that petitioner was un-confirmed employee and in such a case one months prior notice of termination is enough and in the circumstances of the case no inquiry was necessary to be conducted, especially when the allegations were undisputed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondents has cited Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v. Ram Rattan Yadav, 2003 (3) Services Cases Today 762 and State of Haryana v. Surrinder Kumar, 2003 (4) Service Cases Today 575. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also carefully gone through the record of the case. At the hearing of the writ petition, petitioner produced the verification roll which was filled and submitted by the petitioner on his enlistment. At the top of left side of the first page of the verification roll, WARNING is given in bold letters that `the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the verification roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the Government. At Serial No. 3 of the form it is mentioned that `if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. At Serial No 12 (a) petitioner was required to state whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution. At Serial No 12 (a) petitioner was required to state whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution. Against the column at Serial No. 12(b) petitioner was required to furnish information about "Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other eduction authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll ? If answer to (a) or (b) is Yes, then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/University education authority at the time of filling in this form Underneath Serial No. 12 (a) and (b), there is a note to the effect "Please also see the `Warning at the top of this Verification Roll. In answer to column at Serial No. 12(a) and (b) petitioner has written "No", despite the fact that a criminal case was pending against him in a court of law at the time of filling up of the verification roll. Before putting his signatures in English at Page 4 of the verification roll, the petitioner has certified that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief and he is not aware of any circumstances which might impair his fitness for employment under Government. 7. The verification roll is both in English as well as in Hindi. The relevant columns have been filled by the petitioner in his own hand in English. The petitioner has passed his 8th class examination from the Government Middle School Ambala, and having filled up the relevant columns in English and having also put his signature in English and the form being also in English and Hindi, it cannot be contended that the petitioner did not understand the contents of the verification roll, because he was only a middle pass. 8. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner despite warning on the top of the verification roll, has concealed and suppressed the material information in regard to pendency of a criminal case against him in a court of law at Kathua and also about his arrest in connection with the said case. The verification certificate singed by the petitioner on the verification roll was also false. The verification certificate singed by the petitioner on the verification roll was also false. In the verification roll the `Warning was given in bold letters and also under column 3 that if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the verification roll comes to notice of the appointing authority at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. The appointing authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was well within its rights to terminate the services of the petitioner, as the petitioner had concealed and suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case against him, thereby rendering himself liable to termination. In fact the verification roll gave liberty to the appointing authority to terminate the services of the petitioner on finding that any information given by him in the verification roll at the time of his enrolment, is found to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect. 9. This apart the petitioner obtained his appointment in CRPF on the basis of furnishing wrong information and when on verification it was found that he had suppressed material information, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of law. He, therefore, cannot claim a right to the post which he obtained by making a false statement. Unless the petitioner can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment, he cannot claim that the procedure for termination of his service, as provided in the Act, has to been followed. 10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors v. Ram Rattan Yadav (supra) delinquent on getting appointment filed in attestation form and the attestation form filed in by him was almost the same, as in the present case. The delinquent had suppressed the information of a criminal case pending against him in the court of law. His services were terminated. 10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors v. Ram Rattan Yadav (supra) delinquent on getting appointment filed in attestation form and the attestation form filed in by him was almost the same, as in the present case. The delinquent had suppressed the information of a criminal case pending against him in the court of law. His services were terminated. State Administrative Tribunal upheld the order of termination, but a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal by observing that non mention of a pending criminal case in Column 12 (1) of the attestation form can be for the reason that he had education in Hindi medium and he was not well conversant with English words and as such he failed to understand the meaning of prosecution and conviction. That apart, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that criminal case in which the delinquent was involved had been withdrawn by the State Government and that means that the case against the delinquent was not serious, and moreover that did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying the delinquent from seeking the employment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court disagreed with the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, by observing:- "8. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per column 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature of gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns; was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. The information in the said columns; was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissed passed by the appellants. The High court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum, extracted above, in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, if he could not understand the contents of column 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted." 11. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per Para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted." 11. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Surrinder Kumar (supra) is learned judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, upheld the dismissal from service of an employee on his suppression of material information, by observing that it is mandatory duty for each applicant to furnish correct information and withholding relevant information renders him liable to termination. It was further observed that in the case of an unconfirmed employee, service of a show cause notice is enough to conform requirement of natural justice and no inquiry is necessary especially when the allegations are admitted. 12. In the present case too, petitioner was yet to be confirmed and, therefore, no regular inquiry was required to be conducted as the fact of suppression of material information is not denied. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another (supra), has no application to the present case, because in the said case their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not consider the fact of suppression and concealment of material information. The order of termination was set aside on finding that the conviction of the delinquent official being under section 294 I.P.C, did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying him to serve the State. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the same is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Rattan Yadav (Supra), and therefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed, and it is so ordered.