Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 414 (CHH)

Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Union of India

2016-10-18

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2016
ORDER : Pritinker Diwaker, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 terminating services of the petitioner as Head Constable/Driver, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that vide order dated 29.11.1989 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner was appointed as Head Constable/Driver in the Central Industrial Security Force and sent for training and after successful completion of training, the petitioner joined his duties in the establishment of respondent No.3. On 18.12.1989 the petitioner submitted the attestation form wherein in Column No. 12 related to past criminal record of the petitioner, he mentioned in the negative against sub-columns (d) & (i). However, on receipt of report from the authorities concerned, it came to light that in the Column No. 12 the petitioner has suppressed the information relating to registration of Crime No. 346/89 against him for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 294, 506B, 324, 323 & 326 of Indian Penal Code and therefore he was disqualified for his appointment on the said post and accordingly, he was terminated from the services vide impugned order. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that;- On 23.8.1989 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.346/89 registered against the petitioner behind his back on the basis of FIR dated 2.7.1989. At the time of filling-in the attestation form i.e. on 13.12.1989, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and only FIR was registered against him and thus the petitioner was justified in answering the concerned queries in the attestation form. Charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed on 30.12.1989 i.e. after a gap of considerable time from the date of filling-in of the attestation form and therefore no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. Certain information sought in Column No. 12 of the attestation form were not very clear and specific and therefore the petitioner could not understand the contents of the same. Since the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 30.9.1992, the respondent authorities ought to have taken lenient view in the matter and reinstatement of petitioner in service would not cause harm to anyone. 4. Since the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 30.9.1992, the respondent authorities ought to have taken lenient view in the matter and reinstatement of petitioner in service would not cause harm to anyone. 4. Supporting the impugned order it has been argued by counsel for the respondents that; CISF is a highly disciplined force and the petitioner had secured the employment by suppressing the material information at the time of filling-in the attestation form and as such, the termination of petitioner from the service is fully justified and in accordance with law. At the time of filling-in attestation form i.e. on 13.12.1989, it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that FIR has already been registered against him on 2.7.1989 and he was on anticipatory bail pursuant to the order of Court dated 23.8.1989. The case registered against the petitioner was of serious nature involving him under Section 307, IPC. Subsequent acquittal of the petitioner has nothing to do with the conduct of the petitioner because while securing job he has suppressed the material fact and obtained the job by fraud. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him rather it goes against him. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the recording including the impugned order. 6. A bare perusal of the attestation form (Annexure P-3) shows that it was both in Hindi as also in English. It starts with the heading 'Warning-under which it is clearly mentioned that 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 the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. This attestation form contains specific questions in Column No.12 regarding criminal antecedents of a candidate and the candidate was required to give specific answers to each of the questions referred to in the form at the time of filling-in this attestation form. This attestation form contains specific questions in Column No.12 regarding criminal antecedents of a candidate and the candidate was required to give specific answers to each of the questions referred to in the form at the time of filling-in this attestation form. At the end of para-13 of this form, a candidate has to certify that all the information which he made are correct and complete and he is not aware of any circumstances which might impair his fitness for employment under the Government. 7. Since the case in hand pertains to suppression of material information and/or giving false information in Column No. 12 of the attestation form, the relevant portions of the same are quoted below;- 'Column No.12; (d) Have you ever bound down? No (j) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? No 8. It is not in dispute that at the time of filling-in the attestation form the petitioner was on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.346/89 registered against him for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 294, 506B, 324, 323 & 326 of Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid information that the offence against him was registered and he is on bail was required to be disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filling-in the attestation form. However, the petitioner deliberately gave wrong information to the respondents as against the queries made under sub-column (d) & (i) of Column No.12 of attestation form. The fact of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner came to light and to the knowledge of the respondents only on receipt of information from the District Magistrate, Shahdol & the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol (MP). Consequently, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order of termination on the ground that the petitioner deliberately concealed the vital information in order to secure employment. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is an intermediate pass. The attestation form was both in Hindi as also in English and it was specifically mentioned at the very beginning of the attestation form that suppression of any information sought for or giving incorrect information would result in disqualification of the applicant and even after appointment if any such suppression of fact comes to the fore at any point of time, the services of the applicant would be liable to be terminated. Thus, the petitioner knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information and despite that he deliberately gave wrong information to the respondents as against the queries made under sub-column (d) & (i) of Column No. 12 of attestation form. The purpose of seeking the information under Column No.12 of the attestation form is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the petitioner so as to assess his suitability for the post. Therefore, the petitioner was under obligation to answer each question in the attestation form 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. Furthermore, suppression of such information itself amounts to moral turpitude making the petitioner unfit for the job applied for. The respondents cannot therefore be faulted with for terminating the petitioner from service on the aforesaid ground. So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the information sought for in sub-column (d) & (i) of Column No.12 of the attestation form were vague in nature is concerned, it is not the case that sub-column (d) & (i) were left blank by the petitioner, rather he has answered these questions in negative. The petitioner could not have said 'No' as against the aforesaid sub-columns without understanding its contents. The petitioner has also certified in the attestation form that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, which he could not do without understanding the contents of the questions, this submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the matter of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 3598 while dealing with almost similar question has summarized the legal position thus : '33. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the matter of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 3598 while dealing with almost similar question has summarized the legal position thus : '33. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/ rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :- (a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. (c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. (9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.' 11. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present case therefore in the considered opinion of this Court is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order of termination of the petitioners service. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as being without merit.