Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 401 (JK)

Union Of India v. Amit Singh

2013-07-12

Hasnain Massodi, TASHI RABSTAN

body2013
Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. By the medium of this appeal, appellants have assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2013 passed in SWP No. 765/2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 with a further direction to the appellants to reinstate the writ petitioner-respondent into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that writ petitioner-respondent herein, who was Matriculate and in compliance to all eligibility standards laid down for recruitment as Constable General Duty in the Central Reserve Police Force ( hereinafter, for short, CRPF), came to be enlisted in the CRPF on 28.11.2005 and was posted in 128 Bn of CRPF. The writ petitioner claims to have performed his duties successfully for almost five years and, as such, was entitled to be declared a substantive appointee in terms of Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The writ petitioner has further claimed that he was enrolled as Constable General Duty in the CRPF by the competent authority after being fully satisfied with regard to his eligibility and physical standards as also the character antecedents. It is further pleaded in the writ petition by the writ petitioner that at the time of his enrollment, the character antecedents were not got verified by the CRPF authorities and the process of verification was only set in motion as late as in the year 2008 when the writ petitioner was asked to fill up the verification rolls. Accordingly, the writ petitioner with the assistance of fellow constable filled up all the columns of verification rolls on 02.06.2008 and submitted the same to the competent authority. 3. It appears that upon the submission of verification rolls duly signed by the writ petitioner, the matter was taken up by the CRPF authorities with the District Magistrate, Jammu, who while intimating the verification of character antecedents of the writ petitioner, pointed out that the writ petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 88 of 2004 under Sections 341/323, 147 RPC of Police Station Bishnah. It was also intimated by the learned District Magistrate Jammu that upon the challan being produced before the competent court of law, both the parties entered into a compromise and accordingly, challan was compounded. It was also intimated by the learned District Magistrate Jammu that upon the challan being produced before the competent court of law, both the parties entered into a compromise and accordingly, challan was compounded. Ultimately, upon verification, it came to the notice of the CRPF authorities that the writ petitioner was booked in FIR No. 88 of 2004, which was registered with Police Station Bishnah on 20.07.2004 for the afore-mentioned offences, but, lateron when the challan was produced before the competent court of law, the same was compounded on compromise by the parties and consequently, the writ petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the order of learned Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bishnah dated 30.07.2005. Although as is apparent from the pleadings of the writ petitioner, which are not disputed by the respondent-Union of India, the writ petitioner stood acquitted before he was enlisted as constable in CRPF on 28.11.2005. It is also not in dispute that writ petitioner had not procured his appointment as Constable in the CRPF by any misrepresentation or suppression of material information. It is only subsequent to his appointment, the verification rolls were signed by the petitioner in the year 2008 and process of verification was completed in the year 2009. Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, the Commandant-128 Bn, after coming to know of the registration of the case against the writ petitioner and his failure to bring this information to his notice, took it as suppression of material information from him while filling up the verification rolls, issued notice to the writ petitioner on 20.10.2010 intimating him that his services would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date of issuance of the aforesaid order. Vide order impugned dated 19.11.2010, the services of the writ petitioner were ultimately terminated and he was struck off from the rolls of the unit w.e.f. 19.11.2010. It was this order, which was assailed by the writ petitioner through the medium of SWP No. 765 of 2011. 4. Vide order impugned dated 19.11.2010, the services of the writ petitioner were ultimately terminated and he was struck off from the rolls of the unit w.e.f. 19.11.2010. It was this order, which was assailed by the writ petitioner through the medium of SWP No. 765 of 2011. 4. The writ petitioner challenged the order impugned inter alia on the grounds that the same was violative of principles of natural justice as before terminating his services he was not afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard and that the writ petitioner was not guilty of suppression of any material information, inasmuch as, much before his enrollment as Constable in CRPF, the writ petitioner had been honourably acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction. It was also challenged on the ground that since the writ petitioner had not secured the employment by any suppression of material information, as such, he could not be penalized for a bonafide mistake committed by him while filling up and signing the verification rolls. The writ petitioner also explained the bonafide in filling up the verification rolls, particularly, while giving reply to the information sought in column 12-A. 5. The writ petition was contested by the respondents, who relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted in their objections that giving wrong information while filling up column 12-A of the verification form, the writ petitioner had misrepresented and concealed the material information with regard to the registration of criminal case against him and as such, the order impugned was rightly passed terminating the services of the writ petitioner. 6. The matter was considered at length by the learned Single Judge, who vide judgment impugned has set aside the order impugned dated 19.11.2010 and directed the Union of India and others, the appellants herein to reinstate the writ petitioner forthwith along with all consequential benefits. 7. That the appellants have challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30th July, 2011 passed in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P and others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 748 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed conflict of views and has referred the matter to the larger Bench and as such, the learned Single Judge should have awaited the decision by the larger Bench. This is the only ground, on which, the challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From perusal of judgment of learned Single Judge, it is abundantly clear that the learned Single Judge has relied upon several judgments passed by this Court including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S. Nazrul Islan reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6558, Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 and has rightly come to the conclusion that the order impugned was not sustainable. 10. The facts of the case of Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) are identical to the facts of the instant case. In both these cases, the candidate had been acquitted much prior to the appointment and the case registered was for a petty offence not involving any moral turpitude. Since the facts of the instant case were not only nearer, but, identical to the facts of Sandeep Kumar's case (supra) as such, the learned Single Judge followed the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other judgments nearing the plea of the writ petitioner as referred to by the learned Single Judge in his judgment, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 with a further direction to the appellants to re-instate the writ petitioner-respondent herein into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants only laid stress on the point that the matter has been referred to the larger Bench by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh's case (supra), as such, the learned single Judge should have awaited the decision by the Larger Bench, therefore, the judgment impugned cannot sustain. 11. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh's case. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing conflict of views in the decisions rendered by different Division Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court thought it fit to refer the matter to the larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, so that the courts are enabled to comply the law uniformly while dealing such issues. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing conflict of views in the decisions rendered by different Division Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court thought it fit to refer the matter to the larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, so that the courts are enabled to comply the law uniformly while dealing such issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment identified in as many as ten different issues, which needed the consideration by the larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. It is equally true that during the pendency of reference to the larger Bench, the litigation on the subject matter cannot come to stand still and the courts below have to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Several judgments referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment have been rendered in different set of circumstances. In this situation, we feel that the proper course to be adopted is to apply the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is nearer to the facts. As stated above, the judgment passed in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra), relevant para whereof has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge at para no. 8 of the judgment is not only nearer to the facts of the case in hand but is totally identical on facts. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment is, therefore, applicable to the case in hand with all force and we need not to look for any other judgment on the point, particularly, the judgments rendered by co-ordinate Bench of same strength. 12. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and also gone through the judgment impugned minutely. In our view, the same is a well reasoned and speaking one, therefore, needs no interference. 13. Having glance to the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the impugned judgment and appeal is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMA(s), if any.