Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 209 (UTT)

Manoj Chuphal v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-05-08

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court has challenged the order dated 15.03.2012 by which his services were terminated, as a Constable in Uttarakhand Civil Police. He further challenged the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh by which his representation has also been rejected. Both these orders are under challenged in the present writ petition before this Court. 2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was selected as Constable in Uttarakhand Civil Police and he was called for medical examination on 15.02.2012. Thereafter, he was given appointment on 24.02.2012. On the date of medical examination i.e. 15.02.2012 the petitioner was asked to sign an affidavit stating that as per his knowledge, no criminal case was ever filed against him nor any inquiry or court proceeding in any criminal matter is pending against him. This, the petitioner did, stating that no criminal case was filed against him, etc. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training and while he was under going training, the impugned order dated 15.03.2012 was passed whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. The ground for terminating the services of the petitioner are that the petitioner had given a false affidavit to the Department that no criminal case was ever filed against him, whereas there is a reference of a criminal case (F.I.R. No. 05 of 2011, under Section 304 of I.P.C. Police Station Jhulaghat, District Pithoragarh) lodged against him, a fact which he has suppressed, for which his services have been terminated. Against the said order, the petitioner moved a representation, as referred earlier, which too has been rejected. 3. The State has filed its counter affidavit defending the two orders (referred above) stating that the petitioner had suppressed material facts before the Police Authorities. The State, therefore, would argue that by filing a false affidavit the real character of the petitioner is shown, and he is not worthy to be appointed in a police force, as he has proved to be dishonest. 4. There is no question that in case petitioner had suppressed material facts before the Police Department and had given a false affidavit, as alleged, no fault can be found in the impugned orders. There are a catena of decisions, of both the High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, which would support the action of the respondents. 4. There is no question that in case petitioner had suppressed material facts before the Police Department and had given a false affidavit, as alleged, no fault can be found in the impugned orders. There are a catena of decisions, of both the High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, which would support the action of the respondents. A reference has been made here in a case of Devendra Kumar Vs State of Uttaranchal (WPSB No. 278 of 2002 decided on 01.08.2003). This case was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The records of the above case (SPA No. 16 of 2003) are also summoned. In the said special appeal there is a conclusive determination by the Division Bench of this Court that after perusing the records of the criminal case against the said petitioner that based on the interrogation of the police it appears that he has a knowledge of the criminal case filed against him. Thereafter the matter went to Hon’ble Apex Court, where the order was affirmed. 5. What distinguishes the present case, however, with the above case, and in fact with the settled legal position on this aspect, is the contention of the petitioner that he had absolutely no knowledge of the criminal case registered against him. A fact, which has not been convincingly rebutted before this Court. 6. It so happened that the petitioner along with his three friends, namely, Atul Tamta, Narendra Gaira and Shyam Sundar (deceased), who are all residents of Pithoragarh town (District Pithoragarh) went to a place called “Jhulaghat” on 23.07.2011. Jhulaghat is situated at the border of Nepal and India. From the facts which have come before this Court, it appears that all these four persons (including the petitioner) are friends and they are in their twenties at the relevant time. In the afternoon they went from Jhulaghat to the neighbouring border of Nepal where they consumed liquor (Beer) and by nightfall, they reached the Indian border and entered Jhulaghat. It is also to be noted that this area is a mountainous region and later the deceased fell down from a cliff, while answering the call of nature. On the next morning all the three friends reported this matter to the police that the deceased (Shyam Sundar) was missing since night. It is also to be noted that this area is a mountainous region and later the deceased fell down from a cliff, while answering the call of nature. On the next morning all the three friends reported this matter to the police that the deceased (Shyam Sundar) was missing since night. Meanwhile, the First Information Report was lodged on 25.07.2011 by the younger brother of the deceased stating that his brother, who had gone with his three friends to Jhulaghat, has been missing, and all the three friends have thrown his brother down the cliff, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. It is also true that the body of the deceased was discovered on 24.07.2011 morning. It is again true that on 16.01.2012 the Investigating Officer filed a final report in the matter which has been accepted on 29.03.2012. Thereafter no protest application was filed and that was the end of the matter. 7. This Court on the last occasion had directed the State counsel to place before this Court the case Diary of the case. The certified copy of the same has been produced before the Court today and the same is kept on record. 8. From the perusal of the case diary it appears that the Investigating Officer after lodging of the First Information Report, on 26.07.2012 took the statement of the petitioner where the petitioner narrated the entire facts to the Investigating Officer that as to how four friends went to Jhulagath and how they consumed 17-18 beer bottles and thereafter they had a scuffle at Nepal and how they reached Jhulagath in the night etc. In the state of intoxication the deceased fell down from the cliff and the report of his missing was lodged at the police station. However, it has not been revealed from the record that the petitioner was informed that he has been named in the First Information Report. He was merely examined as a witness. There is no conclusive proof to show that the petitioner was involved in any criminal case, or that he had knowledge on 20.07.2012, when his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer that he had been named in the First Information Report. It is also nobody’s case that the petitioner was ever arrested. He was merely examined as a witness. There is no conclusive proof to show that the petitioner was involved in any criminal case, or that he had knowledge on 20.07.2012, when his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer that he had been named in the First Information Report. It is also nobody’s case that the petitioner was ever arrested. Since the petitioner never had any knowledge of criminal case, now it is wrong to derive a conclusion that merely because a First Information Report was lodged against him on 25.07.2011, ipso facto he had knowledge of the same. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Manohar Reddy & another Vs Union of India & others reported in 2013 (3) SCC 99 it has been held that merely because of criminal case filed against a person it would ipso facto not prove that such a person has any knowledge of a criminal case. From the fact of the present case as well, there is no conclusive determination that the petitioner had knowledge of the criminal case filed against him i.e. First Information Report No. 05 of 2011 under Section 304 of I.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said that any degree of uncertainty that the petitioner had suppressed this important and material fact while giving an affidavit. 10. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case a benefit must go in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the two impugned orders dated 15.03.2012 and 30.04.2013 which are passed purely on the basis of conjecture and surmises drawn by the authorities that the petitioner had knowledge of such criminal case and that he suppressed material fact are clearly wrong. 11. In the view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 15.03.2012 and 30.04.2013 are hereby quashed. Consequential benefits be given to the petitioner.