Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2993 (ALL)

SANTOSH KUMAR VERMA. v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-12-14

BHARATI SAPRU

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.10.03, the order dated 22.5.04 and 29.9.04 passed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The order-dated 10.10.03 was passed by the respondent No. 4. By this order, the services of the petitioner were brought to an end invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1947 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The second order under challenge is the order dated 22.5.04 which was passed by the appellate authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the third order is the order dated 29.9.04 passed by the respondent No. 2 in the revision filed by the petitioner, all confirming the order of termination against the petitioner. 3. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Water Man in the C.R.P.F. on 7.11.02. The petitioner was sent for training and having completed his training was also given a posting at Allahabad in March, 2003. 4. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 23.7.04 with the offence of misconduct for furnishing false information in column 12(a) and 12(b) of the verification roll, whereby, he has concealed the factum of pendency of a criminal case against him. 5. As is the usual practice, before getting employment, the petitioner was required to fill the verification form. The verification form, which was filled by the petitioner, has been brought on record as Annexure C.A.-7 to the counter affidavit. The very first clause of this Verification Roll issues a warning, which is contained in clauses 1, 2 and 3 which I quote herein below. : “1. 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. 2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. : “1. 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. 2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which, it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual infromation. 3. 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." 6. The same Verification Roll contains clause 12(a) and (b) which is also quoted herein below : "12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, University or any other education 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." 7. While filling in Clause (b), the petitioner filled the word NAHIN. The same verification also contains the educational qualification of the petitioner, which is noted as High School. 8. When the petitioner’s Verification Roll was sent to the District Magistrate for verification, the District Magistrate reported that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307, 127 and 506 and a case had been registered against him bearing No. 184 of 2001 which was still pending. The report of the District Magistrate dated 16.6.03 is also on record as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. Having received this information, the petitioner’s case was examined; an enquiry was instituted against him under Section 11 for giving false information and for suppressing the material facts about his involvement in the criminal case. 9. The report of the District Magistrate dated 16.6.03 is also on record as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. Having received this information, the petitioner’s case was examined; an enquiry was instituted against him under Section 11 for giving false information and for suppressing the material facts about his involvement in the criminal case. 9. A few facts are very clear that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2001 being case No. 184 of 2001. Although, no date was given in the verification roll as appended in Annexure C.A.-7, the verification roll was given by the petitioner prior to the appointment in the year 2002. He was appointed on 7.1.2002 according to the writ petition and the case was continuing and pending at the time when he was appointed and even after that, and was finally closed on 15.3.03. This is also reflected from the record. 10. The petitioner’s statement before the disciplinary authority, is also on record as Annexure CA-4, in which, the petitioner has admitted to the non-supplying of this information and had said absolutely nothing in his defence. Therefore, on facts, there is no doubt that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner on the date when he filled the Verification Roll and, even though he had this information, he suppressed this information. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of dismissal against the petitioner has been passed under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act of 1949 read with Rule 27 and the power under this provision is confined to the passing of minor punishment. The second argument is that the suppression of such information would not constitute misconduct and the third argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat of the village, where the petitioner lives had given assurance that he had no criminal record. In reply to this argument learned Counsel for the respondent has placed before this Court provisions of Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act which have fully explained. The Full Bench decision is in the case of Madan Tiwari v. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Group Centre), Central Reserve Police Force, Rampur, U.P. and another, (1999)2 UPLBEC 1494. Section 11 reads as hereunder : “11. The Full Bench decision is in the case of Madan Tiwari v. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Group Centre), Central Reserve Police Force, Rampur, U.P. and another, (1999)2 UPLBEC 1494. Section 11 reads as hereunder : “11. Minor punishment.—(1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remission in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say— (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter guard for not more than (twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorized in this behalf by the Commandant. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorized in this behalf by the Commandant. (3) The Assistant Commandant, a company officer or a subordinate officer not being below the rank of Subedar or Inspector, Commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the Head-quarters of the Force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the Force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishments for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act, or which is not of a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a Criminal Court, that is to say, (a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter-guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters, line or camp; (c) censure or severe censure; provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant. (4) A Jamadar or Sub-Inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may, in like manner and for the commission of any like offence, award to any member of the Force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishments specified in Cl. (b) of sub-section (3), for not more than fifteen days.” Rule 27, which was also invoked in the case of the petitioner, deals with the provisions of procedure for award of punishment and includes the punishment of dismissal. 12. (b) of sub-section (3), for not more than fifteen days.” Rule 27, which was also invoked in the case of the petitioner, deals with the provisions of procedure for award of punishment and includes the punishment of dismissal. 12. In reply to the second argument that the information did not constitute misconduct, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ramesh Patel v. Union of India and others, 2006(3) ESC 1669 wherein this Court has held that : “dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf.” 13. The Court further held that because the petitioner had obtained employment by misrepresentation i.e., suppression of material information sought by the appointing authority, he should not be given any relief. The information was asked for the purpose of verifying his character and antecedents and the very fact that the petitioner supplied false and misleading information reflects on his character. He cannot, therefore, said to be a person worthy of getting an appointment or to continue in the employment of the Government. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of a single Bench of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Shukla v. Union of India and others, 2002(1) UPLBEC 610 , and has vehemently argued that the case which was registered against the petitioner would not constitute either misconduct or moral turpitude. 15. In this very judgment, the Court has held that the Court of law cannot approve of wilful and deliberate concealment of factual information. I have perused the appellate order as well as the revisional order. The petitioner was given every opportunity of defending himself by the authority concerned who had considered every aspect of the matter. Therefore, in my opinion, the benefit of this judgment cannot be given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this particular case because as revealed from the record, the petitioner himself had admitted that he knew about the pendency of the case but did not give the information. 16. Therefore, in my opinion, the benefit of this judgment cannot be given to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this particular case because as revealed from the record, the petitioner himself had admitted that he knew about the pendency of the case but did not give the information. 16. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that in the present case, there is wilful and deliberate concealment of information, which was within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner in his statement recorded before the disciplinary authority has admitted that he knew of the pendency of the case registered as case No. 184 of 2001. The power under Section 11 of the C.R.P.F. Act read with Rule 27 was properly invoked in the present case by the authority concerned. 17. Such being the case, the petitioner is certainly guilty of misrepresentation, which he has made at the threshold of his career. This seriously reflects on the character of the petitioner, who in my opinion, is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. The petition is without merits and is dismissed. ————