Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1796 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. Union Of India

2019-11-28

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - In the year 2017, the respondents invited the applications for filling up of the posts of Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (for short ''CISF''). On 20.9.2017, the petitioner after qualifying the physical entrance test, written test and interview was issued and offered appointment vide letter dated 20.9.2017. The petitioner reported for duty and submitted the relevant documents but was not permitted to join and vide letter dated 20.8.2018 the offer of appointment issued by the respondents was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner at one time had involved in a criminal case in the past. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following substantive reliefs: (i) That the impugned decision dated 03.07.2018 and 20.08.2018 contained in Annexure P-6(colly) may very kindly be setaside and quashed. (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Constable/Driver in pursuance to Annexure P-3 issued by the respondents." 3. The respondents contested the petition by filing reply wherein preliminary submissions have been made. It is averred that in the instructions contained in the offer of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that "in case the answer to any question of column No.12 of attestation form is "YES" then he must submit complete details of the case to the Principal, CISF RTC Bhilai immediately by post on receipt of the offer of appointment letter for joining and only on hearing from the Training Centre he will report for Basic Training. It was also mentioned that without forwarding the details in advance and without hearing from Training Centre he will not be allowed to join for the basic training." However, the petitioner did not adhere to the aforesaid instructions and submitted the documents such as Attestation Form dated 03.10.2017, Character and Antecedents Certificate dated 03.10.2017 issued by the SHO, Balh Police Station, District Mandi, H.P., order dated 05.09.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, H.P. and Character Certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Balh, District Mandi, H.P. It was when these documents were submitted that the respondents came to know that FIR had been lodged against the petitioner vide FIR No.10/2013 dated 08.01.2013 and Police Challan No.116-II-14-13, dated 05.04.2013 under Section 435 of IPC in Balh Police Station, District Mandi, H.P. But the petitioner neither disclosed the above fact in the questionnaire form submitted by him while applying for the post of Constable/Driver in CISF-2016 duly filled by him on 26.10.2016 nor disclosed the same when his medical examination was conducted on 09.05.2017. 4. The questionnaire form submitted by the petitioner contained the answer "NO" to the following questions: 1. Have you ever been convicted by any court of law or any other judicial institution? 2. Is there any case pending against you in any court of law? 3. Has any FIR been lodged and case is pending against you? 4. Was any FIR ever lodged against you in the past? (a) If Yes, case no. and sections under which FIR was lodged. (b) Name of the Police Station, where FIR was lodged. (c) Was the case charge sheeted or returned in FR ? (d) In case was charge-sheeted, what was the outcome in court? (i) Convicted. (ii) Acquitted. (iii) Compromised. (iv) Compounded Any other, please specify. 5. Have you ever been dismissed/removed from any service under the Central or State Government? 6. Have your services ever been terminated while on probation? If the answer to any one of the above is ''YES'' then please provide complete details on a separate sheet." 5. Since the information disclosed by the petitioner was not true and correct, therefore, in terms of the policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 01.02.2012 and the instructions issued by the 18th Standing Screening Committee on 19.07.2018 the petitioner was found to be not suitable for appointment in the respondent-department. 6. Since the information disclosed by the petitioner was not true and correct, therefore, in terms of the policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 01.02.2012 and the instructions issued by the 18th Standing Screening Committee on 19.07.2018 the petitioner was found to be not suitable for appointment in the respondent-department. 6. Therefore, the moot question in the given facts and circumstances is whether any exception to the action of the respondents can be taken when admittedly the petitioner had made a false declaration (as above). 7. At the outset, it needs to be observed that CISF, shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. 8. The issue of involvement in a criminal case by a candidate seeking recruitment to police post, concealment of this fact, his acquittal and entitlement to be appointed, was considered in catena of cases. However, one of the most important decision on this issue is one rendered by the Hon''ble three Judges bench in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , the operative directions issued therein read 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. 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. 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. 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. " 9. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is not in dispute that the information given to the employer by the petitioner as to his pendency of the criminal case was not true and there was suppression and false declaration of the required information. 10. The respondent while passing the termination of services have taken into consideration the government orders/instructions applicable to the petitioner at the time of taking the decision. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents whereby the offer of appointment has been withdrawn by them on account of suppression of required information regarding the pendency of the criminal case. 11. The mere fact that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said case is also of no advantage to the petitioner as the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that even acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidate in the post concerned. 11. The mere fact that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said case is also of no advantage to the petitioner as the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly held that even acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidate in the post concerned. (Refer: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, (2018) 1 SCC 797 .) 12. Similar reiteration of law can be found in another recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Panwar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 which related to the recruitment of police constable and cancellation of selection on antecedents verification and it was held that a candidate involved in a crime, even though, acquitted by the criminal Court was not entitled to be appointed as a matter of right. 13. In conclusion we may observe that supply of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuation of service as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police and others, (2008) 1 SCC 660 . Furnishing of wrong information by a candidate while seeking appointment makes him unsuitable for appointment and liable for removal/termination when the said information is specifically sought by the appointing authority. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has not been found suitable for appointment in CISF and, therefore, the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner has been cancelled. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.