Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 395 (MP)

Sheru Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-04-07

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2015
ORDER : Shri. Prakash Shrivastava, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 deleting the name of the petitioner from select list to the post of Constable, as also the order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 denying the appointment. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner had applied for the post of constable in the police department and was sent the communication dated 21/5/2007 intimating that he has been selected and requiring him to submit character verification form disclosing the requisite information verified by the competent officer and also to submit an affidavit disclosing that no criminal case was registered/pending against him. The petitioner had furnished the requisite details along with details of two criminal cases in which he was prosecuted. It would not be out of place to mention here that while submitting the attestation form initially, the petitioner, in column No. 12 of the form had not disclosed the details of the criminal cases in which he was prosecuted. When the details of criminal cases registered against the petitioner came to the knowledge of the Inspector General of Police, he had passed the order dated 14/1/08 striking out the name of petitioner from the select list. The petitioner had submitted the representation dated 14/1/08 to Director General of Police and vide communication dated 24/7/09 he was informed about rejection. Thereafter, the petitioner had again submitted representation and had filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal cases registered against him and the petitioner had disclosed the said fact and the details of the criminal cases at the stage of character verification, therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and has submitted that the respondents cannot supplement the reason of striking off his name from the select list in the reply before this Court. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the criminal case relating to moral turpitude was registered against the petitioner, therefore, his candidature has rightly been cancelled. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the criminal case relating to moral turpitude was registered against the petitioner, therefore, his candidature has rightly been cancelled. She has further submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the registration of the criminal cases in the attestation form and the said fact had come to the knowledge when the character verification was done, hence there was suppression of the details by the petitioner in the attestation form. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The attestation form filled up, signed and submitted by petitioner at the initial stage is on record as Annexure R-1. This attestation form is not in dispute. Column No. 12 of attestation form requires a candidate to disclose the details relating to the prosecution in criminal case, arrest, bail, conviction etc. The petitioner had filled up 'Nil' in respect of information sought in column 12. It is undisputed that criminal case for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered against the petitioner on the allegation of committing theft of cycle. It is the case of respondents that stolen cycle was seized from the spot from the petitioner. In that case, since the witnesses had turned hostile, therefore, petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 10/10/2014. Another criminal case for offence under Sections 341, 294 & 506/34 of IPC was also registered against the petitioner in which petitioner was given warning. 7. The circular issued by the Special Branch of Police Department of the State dated 1/7/2003 contains the details and requirements of character verification. A list of offences falling under the category of moral turpitude is enclosed as Schedule A. Offence under Section 379 IPC for which petitioner was prosecuted has been included in the category of moral turpitude in Schedule A. The petitioner has been found ineligible on the ground that he was prosecuted for offence under Section 379 of IPC falling in the category of moral turpitude and he had suppressed the fact in the attestation form submitted initially. 8. In the opening sentence of the initial attestation form (Annexure R 1) submitted by petitioner it was clearly mentioned that in case if any false information is given or any information is suppressed then the candidate will be held ineligible. 8. In the opening sentence of the initial attestation form (Annexure R 1) submitted by petitioner it was clearly mentioned that in case if any false information is given or any information is suppressed then the candidate will be held ineligible. The subsequent disclosure of criminal cases by the petitioner at the stage of filing the affidavit in response to the communication dated 21/5/07 will not have any mitigating effect on initial suppression of the details of offence by the petitioner in the attestation form. 9. A person indulging in "suppression veri and suggestion falsie" is not entitled to any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. For recruitment to uniformed service a relatively higher standard of antecedents and character is expected than the other services. While selecting a candidate for the post of constable in police force the authority entrusted with the responsibility of selection and recruitment needs to strictly adhere to the norms which have bearing on the discipline in the Force. Suppression of information or furnishing false information relating to prosecution in such appointments itself is sufficient to cancel or deny appointment and such a candidate has no equitable right even if he is acquitted in the criminal case. 10. The Supreme court in the matter of has held that the object of requiring information in columns 12 & 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and to verify the character and antecedents of the candidate as on the date of the filing and attestation of the form and to judge his suitability to continue in service. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuance in service. It has been further held that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. 11. In the matter of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177 , the Supreme court has held that as to the purpose for which the information is called for, the employer is the ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and to decide supply it or not. 12. It is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and to decide supply it or not. 12. In the matter of R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police and others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 660 , the candidate for appointment as Fireman had furnished wrong information about his involvement in criminal case. Though he was acquitted, Supreme court while upholding the order of denial of appointment has held that the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services and in such a case of suppression, question of exercising the equitable jurisdiction would not arise. 13. In the matter of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 103 , it has been held that the purpose of seeking the information relating to antecedents is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post and a candidate is required to answer the questions truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed security service. It has been held that an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case or his involvement in a criminal offence even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt etc. and on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case. 14. In the matter of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 , the Supreme Court has considered the previous judgments and reiterated the position of law that the suppression of information relating to involvement in criminal case itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case. In such a case the service of the candidate is liable to be terminated, even if there is no further trial or the person concerned is acquitted/discharged. In such a case the service of the candidate is liable to be terminated, even if there is no further trial or the person concerned is acquitted/discharged. Supreme Court had found the termination of the candidate on the ground of suppression of criminal case to be proper though final report in criminal case submitted by the prosecution was accepted by Judicial Magistrate. 15. Since in the present case, the record clearly reflects that in column 12 of the attestation form Annexure R-1, petitioner had suppressed the information relating to two criminal cases in which he was prosecuted therefore, the respondents have committed no error in finding the petitioner unsuitable for the post of constable and striking out his name from the select list. Regulation 53 of Police Regulations relating to the recruitment of constables in sub-clause (c) requires the candidate to have good moral character and antecedents. Considering the nature of discipline and standard which is required to be maintained in the police force, decision of respondents cannot be faulted. 16. Counsel for petitioner has raised an argument that in the impugned order dated 14/1/2008 the suppression is not mentioned as one of the reason for cancellation of the candidature and referring to the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 has submitted that reason cannot be supplemented in the reply before this court. Such an argument cannot be accepted because the impugned order clearly reflects that the candidature of petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of his prosecution in the criminal case relating to theft which is an offence falling under the category of moral turpitude. The attestation form Annexure R-1 in which said information was suppressed is on record which is also not in dispute. Therefore, it is not one such case where the reasons are sought to be supplemented but it is a case where considering the entire circumstances the respondents have found the petitioner to be unfit for employment in the police force. Considering the conduct of petitioner this Court is of the view that equitable jurisdiction need not be exercised in favour of petitioner. 17. In view of above analysis, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. 18. C.C. as per rules.