Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 306 (MP)

Bhagwandas Gurjar v. State of M. P.

2017-03-01

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 6.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been treated ineligible for the services of Police Department on the basis of concealment of fact regarding registration of criminal case against the petitioner. 2. Grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was selected as police constable after competing in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board in 2013. Necessary documents are placed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 with the writ petition. After the result being declared, the case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under sections 341, 294, 323, 506B and 34 of IPC on dated 8.6.2014. At the time of selection, petitioner was not facing such criminal case, therefore, he could not refer pendency of the criminal cases before the authority. Even otherwise, the petitioner got acquittal order in his favour from the trial Court vide judgment dated 1.10.2014 passed in the Criminal Case No.2410/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena. The judgment of acquittal is placed as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him as well as the fact that at the time of selection he was not facing any criminal case, therefore, impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order reflects that the petitioner was involved in more than one criminal cases/offences and therefore, it is possible that the petitioner may have concealed the factum of those offences in his character verification form. It is also possible that at the time of filling up of character verification form petitioner might be facing criminal case but has deliberately concealed such fact in his character verification form, therefore, the order has rightly been passed by respondent No.4. She prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard. 5. From perusal of documents, it appears that the the petitioner has been selected in the year 2013 through the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board. It is not clear from the record that whether at the time of filling up of the form petitioner was facing the charge of offence as enumerated above or not. 6. Heard. 5. From perusal of documents, it appears that the the petitioner has been selected in the year 2013 through the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board. It is not clear from the record that whether at the time of filling up of the form petitioner was facing the charge of offence as enumerated above or not. 6. The Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [ (2016)8 SCC 471 ], has culled out the principles in respect of controversy in question. Para 38 is relevant which reads as under : “38. 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 : 38.1. 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. 38.2. 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. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. 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 : 38.4.1. 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. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. 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. 38.5. 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. 38.6. 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. 38.7. 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. 38.8. 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. 38.9. 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. 38.10. 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. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 7. 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. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 7. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned observations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is relegated back to the competent authority of the department to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of observations made by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), and would take decision in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably within three months. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 6.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) stands quashed and matter is remanded for reconsideration. 8. Petition is disposed of accordingly.