Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 69 (MP)

Dharmendra Singh v. Union of India

2015-01-16

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sheel Nagu, J. 1. The petitioner assails his termination order from the post of Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force ( for brevity, 'CISF') vide Annexure P-2 dated 09.09.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. The petitioner after being subjected to prescribed selection process under the recruitment rules was appointed as Constable in the CISF vide order dated 22.07.2009. 4. The factual matrix involved in the present case are that the petitioner after due selection was appointed as Constable vide order dated 22.07.2009 on probation for a period of two years. 5. On holding enquiry as regards information furnished by the petitioner in the Attestation Form, it was found that the petitioner was involved in crime No. 104/2007 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 294, 451 r/w section 34 of IPC registered at Morena. The Attestation Form filed up by the petitioner in para 22 posed the following questions :- (a) Have you ever been arrested ? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted ? (c ) Have you ever been kept under detention ? (d) Have you ever been bound down ? (e) ---------- (f) ---------- (g) ---------- (h) ---------- (i) ---------- 6. To the above said questions, the petitioner categorically answered 'No'. 7. The employer on enquiry found that the above said offence was registered against the petitioner in which the petitioner was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 14.07.2010 Annexure P-7. The employer further found that the Attestation was filled up and signed by the petitioner prior to the above said acquittal when the said criminal case was pending against the petitioner. The employer thus found that the information furnished by the petitioner in his Attestation Form was incorrect. The Attestation Form which is Annexure R-2 along with reply of the respondents at the very beginning publishes the following warning :- "The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. If detained, convicted, debarred, etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of the Form the details should be communicated immediately to the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. If detained, convicted, debarred, etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of the Form the details should be communicated immediately to the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to the notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated." 8. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and furnished incorrect information in the Attestation Form. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioner was ultimately acquitted, he should be treated as having absolved of the criminal charges right from the stage of commission of offences, cannot be accepted as cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is based more upon suppression of information and giving incorrect information rendering the appointment liable to be terminated in terms of warning given in the Attestation Form. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, : (2013) 9 SCC 363 has held in para 24 & 25 as under :- 24. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 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. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctity the same. 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. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctity the same. Sublato fundamento cadit 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. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and Lily Thomas v. Union of India ) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur). 11. In view of above, no fault can be found in the action of respondents by issuing impugned orders Annexures P-1 & P-2. 12. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of Constitution of India by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present case is the same as one which has been referred by Apex Court to Larger Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to whether there is any order passed by the Apex Court over ruling or distinguishing the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) therefore, as and when the larger Bench decides the issue, the petitioner can always take advantage of the order passed by the Larger Bench as per law. 14. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed. Sans cost.