Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 174 (GAU)

UNION OF INDIA v. SHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL

2019-02-07

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.S.BOPANNA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A. S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. DC Borah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. KU Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5986/2014. Through the said order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 23.9.2014 passed by the appellate authority. In that light, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein to reinstate the respondent back in service with continuity in service along with consequential service benefits and to release 50% of the backwages. The learned Single Judge has, in fact, thereafter reserved the liberty to the appellants herein to consider the matter afresh and impose minor punishment upon the petitioner/respondent herein. The appellants herein claiming to be aggrieved by such order, are seeking to assail the same. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the respondent herein at the point of appointment on 30.11.2011 was required to fill up a verification form, where one of the columns provided for the information of his past record, was also to be filled up. In that regard, it is pointed out that though a criminal case was pending against the respondent herein, the same was not indicated in the column. It is, therefore, pointed out that in such circumstance, where there is withholding of information, the same would amount to suppression and therefore, in that circumstance, action was initiated and after holding an enquiry, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. It is contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the punishment imposed was disproportionate in a matter of present nature, where there was suppression of information at the point of employment itself. In that light, it is contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that though a criminal case was ultimately found to be registered, the same was not for any individual offence as committed by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that though a criminal case was ultimately found to be registered, the same was not for any individual offence as committed by the respondent. It is contended that the case had been registered against all the family members relating to occupation of land and the proceedings though initiated was not within the knowledge of the respondent as the matter was being taken care of by his family members against whom the proceeding had also been initiated. In any event as on the date of filling up of the verification form, the matter was not within the knowledge of the respondent and therefore, the respondent in any event, could not have furnished any details with regard to the same. In that light, it is contended that in such circumstance, when the same could not be considered as suppression of information, the action taken was not justified. It is further pointed out that it is only when the order of punishment was passed against the respondent, he made an enquiry and came to know about the case being registered against all the family members and subsequently, since it was not the case where offence was alleged on such date, he had also in that light taken note of that aspect and ultimately in the said proceeding, he has been acquitted. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Single Judge was justified and the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. 4. In the light of the above, a perusal of the petition papers would indicate that the respondent herein was appointed by the appellants on 30.11.2011 as the Constable in the CRPF Group Centre, Lucknow. At that point of time, a verification form was required to be filled up by the respondent. In column 12 of the same which contained information about his past record as to whether he was involved in any criminal activities or had been prosecuted in any case, was to be stated therein. The respondent had answered in the negative while filling up the said column. Ultimately, on verification, the appellants have come to know that a criminal case bearing No.459/2011 was registered against the respondent herein. It is, in that light, the present case was initiated. The respondent had answered in the negative while filling up the said column. Ultimately, on verification, the appellants have come to know that a criminal case bearing No.459/2011 was registered against the respondent herein. It is, in that light, the present case was initiated. In the process of enquiry also, when it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the criminal case had been registered against him, he had pleaded ignorance and had sought to justify his action with regard to the entry made in the verification form. However, the Enquiry Officer having taken note that the criminal case No.459/2011 was, in fact, registered against the respondent herein had found the respondent guilty and the disciplinary authority having accepted the same, had imposed the punishment. 5. In a matter of present nature, the issue at the outset would be as to whether the indication made by the respondent in column 12 of the verification form should be considered as suppression of material information as on the said date. To take note of this aspect, as already indicated, the appointment order was issued on 30.11.2011 on which day, the verification form was signed. The criminal case bearing No.459/2011 was registered on 4.9.2011. Even though the case is registered as on the date of appointment of the respondent and the date on which he filled up the verification form, neither in the enquiry nor in any other material, it has been established that as on 30.11.2011 when the verification form was filled up, the summons had been served on the respondent and he was aware of the proceedings. 6. If that be the position, in the present circumstance, where the allegation is with regard to the wrong information furnished in column 12 of the verification form and it is alleged that as on the date of appointment, a criminal case was pending, it was incumbent on the appellants to prove that the same was also within the knowledge of the respondent and that the information had been deliberately withheld by him. 7. The learned Single Judge while taking note of this aspect, has also taken into consideration that there is every possibility of indiscretion on the part of the respondent due to his tender age and in that light, has arrived at a conclusion that a harsh punishment of dismissal would not be justified. 7. The learned Single Judge while taking note of this aspect, has also taken into consideration that there is every possibility of indiscretion on the part of the respondent due to his tender age and in that light, has arrived at a conclusion that a harsh punishment of dismissal would not be justified. Therefore, in the above back ground, more particularly, in the circumstance, when the learned Single Judge has reserved the liberty to impose lesser punishment, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.