Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1001 (RAJ)

Raju Ram v. Commandant, C. I. S. F

2014-04-23

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order Annex.5 dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force and prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join the duties on the post of Constable. As per facts of the case, petitioner filed an application for appointment in pursuance of advertisement Annex.1 issued by the respondent department and he was allowed to appear in the medical examination for recruitment on the post of Constable (Driver) and (DCPO) and finally, he was found suitable for appointment but an information was given upon character verification by the Superintendent of police, Nagaur that four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. Out of four criminal cases, in three cases, the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of compromise and in Case No. 22 dated 01/05/2006 registered against him under Section 307 IPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act, petitioner was acquitted from the criminal court. After receiving such information from the Superintendent of police, the respondents issued an order on 23.05.2011 whereby, the offer of appointment to the petitioner was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of cancellation of appointment is illegal for the reason that notifications dated 01.02.2012 and policy dated 01.02.2012 whereby, a decision was taken not to provide appointment to the candidates against whom the cases under IPC is registered for serious offence of moral turpitude are not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioner for the simple reason that in all the criminal cases, petitioner was already acquitted from the Court either on compromise or after trial, therefore, order impugned deserves to be quashed. In reply to the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is guilty of making suppression of facts because after issuance of offer of appointment order for the post of Constable/Driver by the Chairman of recruitment Board vide letter dated 25.02.2011, the petitioner was directed to report at RTC, Bhilai on 22.03.2011 to undergo basic training of Constable/Driver w.e.f 24.03.2011 but on verification of character and antecedents, a certificate was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of reporting at RTC in which it was observed that four criminal cases were registered against him in which he was acquitted either on compromise after filing challan or trial but during process of recruitment, the petitioner suppressed all above material facts in questionnaire form enclosed with the application form dated 13.07.2010 for the post of Constable/Driver in C.I.S.F submitted by him. Further he suppressed the fact in the questionnaire form submitted by him during medical examination held on 22.02.2011 for the first time when he reported for training at RTC, Bhilai, the communication of character verification from Superintendent of Police, Nagaur was submitted by him in which it is revealed that petitioner was involved in four criminal cases prior to submitting application form and in the questionnaire form, no such information was furnished by him with regard to registration of criminal case against him, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts to seek appointment on the post, therefore, the order impugned is justified. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors reported in AIR 2013 SC 3325 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suppression of material facts itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct form involved in criminal case, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief in this writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. In reply filed by the respondents, the denial of appointment to the petitioner is on the ground that he has concealed material information with regard to registration of criminal case against him in which he was acquitted either on compromise or after trial. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. In reply filed by the respondents, the denial of appointment to the petitioner is on the ground that he has concealed material information with regard to registration of criminal case against him in which he was acquitted either on compromise or after trial. I have examined whether on such concealment of fact, the petitioner can be appointed on the post in question or not. It is specifically pleaded by the respondents that four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner but no information was given by him but the fact of registration of cases was disclosed in the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur from where the petitioner's character verification was sought by the respondents. Petitioner at the time of submitting application form on 13.07.2010 and at the time of conducting medical examination of the petitioner held on 22.02.2011, the petitioner was directed to fill in questionnaire form in which he has clearly written with regard to registration of criminal case as “No” to all four questions of question no.4 of the questionnaire and for the first time, when petitioner reported on training at RTC, Bhilai, he submitted the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur in which it is found that four criminal cases were registered against him. Following four cases were registered against the petitioner :- “i) Police Case No. 81 dated 29.11.2005 was registered against him under Section 323, 341 of IPC and challaned. In this case, he relieved by the Court on 3.2.2006. ii) Police case No. 292 dated 18.7.2005 was registered against him under section 143, 323, 341, 325 of IPC and challaned. In this case, he relieved by the Court on 10.03.2006 and acquitted from Section 143 of IPC. iii) Police Case No.3 dated 20.06.2004 was registered against the petitioner under section 323/34, 341 IPC and challaned. In this case, he was relieved by the Court on 06.10.2005. iv) Police Case NO. 22 dated 01.05.2006 was registered against him under section 307 of IPC and 3/25 Arms Act and challaned. iii) Police Case No.3 dated 20.06.2004 was registered against the petitioner under section 323/34, 341 IPC and challaned. In this case, he was relieved by the Court on 06.10.2005. iv) Police Case NO. 22 dated 01.05.2006 was registered against him under section 307 of IPC and 3/25 Arms Act and challaned. In this case, he was relieved by the Court on 25.6.2008.” In view of above, it is abundantly clear that no information with regard to registration of criminal case was given by the petitioner even though he was granted an opportunity at the time of filling up the application form and at the time of medical examination, therefore, I am of the opinion that refusal of appointment is perfectly in accordance with law in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (Supra) in which following adjudication has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court : “22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case. 23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. “Subla Fundamento cedit opus”-a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. “Subla Fundamento cedit opus”-a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340 ; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur). 24. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.” I have considered the present case in the light of aforesaid adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In my opinion, the adjudication made by Hon'ble Supreme Court completely applies in the present case because the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material information sought by the employer which itself amounts to moral turpitude, therefore, while following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.