Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Union Of India

2010-02-03

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2010
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1 The petitioner was enlisted as a Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force on 24.08.1994 at Nahan (Himachal Pradesh). He reported for duty at GC CRPF, Pinjore on 27.08.1994. He was undergoing training when abruptly his services were terminated by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF-respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.08.1995 (Annexure P-l). On seeking information, the petitioner was informed orally that the petitioner has failed to disclose the information that a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC in Police Station, Una (Himachal Pradesh) and he had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una, vide order dated 02.05.1994. 2 The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.1995, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also supplied the photocopies of the judgment dated 02.05.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Una in a criminal case registered against the petitioner, in which he was acquitted. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24,04.1996 (Annexure P-9). 3 Counsel for the petitioner challenges the orders dated 24.08.1995 and 24.04.1996 being non-speaking and not disclosing any reason for termination of the services of the petitioner. He contends that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as they have been passed without assigning any reason or ground for termination of the services of the petitioner. Nothing has been conveyed to the petitioner with regard to the reasons for termination of his services. His further contention is that the petitioner has not been given any information which would have misled the respondents or in any manner affected the right of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable. He contends that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 28.10.1992, in which, after trial the petitioner was acquitted on 02.05.1994. The verification form was filled by the petitioner on 09.12.1994 and on the said date, there was no criminal case pending against him as he stood acquitted on 02.05.1994. He contends that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 28.10.1992, in which, after trial the petitioner was acquitted on 02.05.1994. The verification form was filled by the petitioner on 09.12.1994 and on the said date, there was no criminal case pending against him as he stood acquitted on 02.05.1994. The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 02.05.1994 in the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the year 1995 being Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1995, which came to be decided by the Court on 08.04.1997 and the same was dismissed by the High Court, He submits that on the date when the verification form was filled by the petitioner, the information, as supplied by him, was true and correct to his knowledge as from the date of his acquittal i.e. 02.05.1994 till the date of filling in of the verification form i.e. 09.12.1994, the State had not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal as the appeal was preferred in the year 1995 only. He, on this basis, submits that the orders of termination of the services of the petitioner and dismissal of the appeal by respondent No. 2 are not in accordance with law. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 24.08.1995 (Annexure P-l) passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 24.04.1996 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2 deserve to be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 4 On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was required to fill in the verification form which he had not duly filled. As per the requirement of column No. 12 of the verification form, a candidate was required to disclose the information as to whether he was ever 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/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution. He was, therefore, required to give the information with regard to he being prosecuted under a criminal case but he did not give that information and, therefore, has committed a misconduct and thus, his services were terminated rightly. He was, therefore, required to give the information with regard to he being prosecuted under a criminal case but he did not give that information and, therefore, has committed a misconduct and thus, his services were terminated rightly. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Rattan Yadav, (2003)10 S.C.C. 284:A.LR. 2003 Supreme Court 1709, a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No.4874 of 2007 titled as R. Radhakrishnan v. The Director General of Police and others, decided on 12.10.2007, a Division Bench judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.2917 of 2005 titled as Ex. Constable Ibadat Khan v. Union of India and others, decided on 27.03.2008 and a judgment of this Court in CWP No. 19570 of 2008, titled as the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and others, decided on 05.05.2009. 5 I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6 The order of termination is a totally non-speaking one as it does not disclose any reason for termination of the services of the petitioner. Similarly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 24.04.1996 (Annexure P-9) also is non-speaking and, therefore, both these orders, on this ground alone, deserve to be set aside. However, the factual position, as has come out in the pleadings, otherwise also does not support the reason, which has been given by the respondents for terminating the services of the workman. On the date when the petitioner was enlisted as a Constable in CRPF i.e. 24.08.1994 and on the date when he filled in the verification form i.e. 09.12.1994, there was no case pending against the petitioner as he had been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una (Himachal Pradesh) vide judgment dated 02.05.1994. There was no appeal preferred by the State against the said judgment till the date of filling of the verification form by the petitioner as the appeal was preferred in the year 1995. In any case, the appeal was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.1997. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 24.08.1995 on the ground that he has suppressed the material facts. In any case, the appeal was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.1997. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 24.08.1995 on the ground that he has suppressed the material facts. As is apparent from the above facts, there was no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner as when the information was given by the petitioner, there was no misstatement on his part. The order of termination thus passed by the respondents being not in accordance with the factual position, which was pressed into service by the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The judgments, relied upon by the counsel for the respondents in support of his contentions, are distinguishable on the facts on the ground that in all the judgments, which have been referred to by the counsel for the respondents, criminal cases were pending against the incumbents which information was not disclosed by them in their respective verification forms. This is not the position in the present case as there was no case pending against the petitioner when the verification form was submitted by the petitioner. 7 In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 24.08.1995 and the appellate order dated 24.04.1996, Annexures P-1 and P-9 respectively, are hereby quashed. 8 Counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of hearing of the case on instructions from the petitioner, stated that in case the petitioner is reinstated in service, he would not press for any financial benefits. 9 In the light of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner on instructions from Avtar Singh-petitioner, the petitioner is held not entitled to any financial benefits from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement, however, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject to his fulfilling the other requirements such as physical fitness etc.