Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 743 (JK)

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.

2012-12-06

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2012
Hasnain Massodi, J.— 1. Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, appeared in endurance test on 18.02.2002 at Gulshan Ground, Jammu and was appointed as Constable and allotted Constable No. 035071749. He joined at CRPF Camp, Ban Talab, Jammu on 25.02.2002. The respondents vide Order No. D.V. 2/2005 16 E.C. 11 dated 31.03.2005 terminated petitioner's services, while his colleagues selected in the same selection process named in Para 3 of the petition were retained in service. 2. The petitioner questions the termination Order dated 31.03.2005 on the grounds set out in the petition. 3. Respondents oppose the writ petition on the ground that upon selection and appointment of the petitioner, a communication was addressed by the respondent-department to the Additional Director General, CID, Jammu requiring him to verify the character and antecedents of the petitioner. It is pleaded that as per the report received from the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Jammu, a criminal case FIR No. 88/2000 under Sections 307, 326, 34/RPC, Police Station, Hiranagar was pending against the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua on the date he participated in the selection process and was appointed as Constable. The petitioner in his Verification Roll, at the time of applying for the advertised post, did not make mention of his alleged involvement in the aforesaid criminal case. Failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the true facts in his Verification Roll, according to the respondents, prompted them to terminate his service. It is insisted that the termination order is legal and justified and also in consonance with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. 4. Petitioner in his rejoinder while admitting that he was an accused in case, titled, State vs. Khem Raj and ors, under Sections 307, 326, 34 RPC on the date he applied for the post of Constable, participated in the selection process and was appointed, insists that Trial Court vide its judgment rendered on 31.3.2006 acquitted him of all the charges. It is pleaded that petitioner was wrongly implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and that his acquittal points to such an influence. The petitioner further pleads that his clean acquittal by the learned Trial Court of all the charges, should have persuaded the respondents from going for the extreme measure of terminating his service. 5. It is pleaded that petitioner was wrongly implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and that his acquittal points to such an influence. The petitioner further pleads that his clean acquittal by the learned Trial Court of all the charges, should have persuaded the respondents from going for the extreme measure of terminating his service. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lays much emphasis on acquittal of the petitioner. Reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner in his petition as also in his rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, it is argued that the facts and circumstances did not warrant termination of the petitioner's service. Learned counsel seeks to draw support from the law laid down in case, titled, Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 6 Sup 23 (2011) 0 Air (SC) 2903. 7. In Ram Kumar's case (supra), the appellant applied for the post of Constable in the year, 2006 and in his proforma of Verification Roll, he stated that no case was registered against him. However, as a matter of fact, a criminal case No. 275/2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered against him. Charge Sheet arising out of aforesaid FIR was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18.07.2002. However, Sr. Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad cancelled the order of appointment on the ground that he had failed to disclose in his Verification Roll that a criminal case was registered against him in the year, 2001 at Police Station, Etawah. Order of acquittal dated 18.07.2002 in favour of Ram Kumar did not persuade the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad to maintain his selection/appointment as Constable. It is, in these circumstances, that the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 08.08.2007 of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and directed the respondents to take the appellant in service. 8. The facts of present case are markedly different from the facts of Ram Kumar's case set out above. In Ram Kumar's case, a criminal case was registered against the appellant much before advertisement notice was issued and four years prior to his selection and appointment. He responded to the Advertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and was selected. He was admittedly acquitted of the charges few years before he applied for the advertised post. 9. In Ram Kumar's case, a criminal case was registered against the appellant much before advertisement notice was issued and four years prior to his selection and appointment. He responded to the Advertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and was selected. He was admittedly acquitted of the charges few years before he applied for the advertised post. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly facing trial on the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 34 RPC on the date he responded to the advertisement notice, he filled the Verification Roll, and was selected and appointed as Constable. The petitioner was terminated from service on 31.03.2005 when he was still accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua. He earned acquittal vide judgment dated 31.03.2006 i.e. one year after his termination from the service. 10. In Ram Kumar's case, appellant was neither involved in any criminal case, nor facing trial on the date he responded to the advertised notice. Petitioner's case stands on different footing in as much as, he was facing criminal charges on the date he responded to the advertisement notice and thereafter, selected and appointed as Constable. Viewed thus, the petitioner cannot draw any support from the law laid down in Ram Kumar's case (supra). 11. It is important to note that petitioner in the present case has not been shown the door because he was convicted or found guilty of the criminal charge. The reason that prompted the respondents to terminate petitioner's service was his willful withholding of correct information in his Verification Roll. The acquittal of the accused after his termination or before his termination in the service roll does not make any difference. Had the petitioner honestly disclosed in his Verification Roll that he was facing criminal charges in case FIR No. 275/2001, registered at Police Station, Hiranagar and thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, one could very well say that he had been honest and truthful and not withheld the information and that his acquittal should entitled him to be considered for the advertised post or retained in the force. 12. In the case of hand, the petitioner on his own admission did not disclose true information about his involvement in a criminal case. 12. In the case of hand, the petitioner on his own admission did not disclose true information about his involvement in a criminal case. The respondents cannot be compelled to have on the rolls of premier police force of the country a Constable found to have been dishonest and not truthful in his response to the questions set out in the Verification Roll. 13. The petitioner was on probation on the date he was terminated. The respondents have done well not to refer to any mis-conduct while terminating his services in terms of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The termination order impugned, therefore, is not stigmatic in character and on that ground also is not open to challenge. 14. The legal proposition that emerges from the above discussion is that while failure on the part of an aspirant for his enrollment in belt force, to mention his involvement in a criminal case, in which he has been acquitted before advertisement notice was issued, may not be fatal to his right to be considered for appointment against advertised post, such failure cannot be condoned where a candidate selected and appointed omits to give information of his involvement in a criminal case in his verification Roll, on the date he responds to the advertisement notice and offers his candidature. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is held to be bereft of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected CMAs (if any).