Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 441 (JHR)

Pranab Haldar v. Union of India

2022-04-12

S.N.PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.6196 dated 17.06.2015 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure-2) by which the petitioner has been terminated from services, passed by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure-2), by which the petitioner has been terminated from services to the post of Constable, passed by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with consequential monetary benefits with panel rate of interest. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to prohibit the respondents from filling up the post which become vacant due to alleged termination of services of the petitioner and restraining the respondents authorities from filling up the post of Constable (Security) made vacant due to illegal termination of service of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as Constable in CISF on 06.09.2008 vide RTC Arakkonam Service order Part-I No.49/2008 dated 30.10.2008 and by the same order, he was asked to report for duties along with duly filled-up attestation form and requisite certificates. As per the terms and conditions of service, he was placed under probation for a period of two years with clear direction that in the event of his being found unsuitable for retention in the force, at any time either during the period of his initial training or during the period of his probation, his services would be terminated by the Appointing Authority in accordance with the provision of Rule 25 & 26 of CISF Rules, 2001. Accordingly, petitioner undergone the Basic Training of Constable at RTC Arakkonam w.e.f. 08.09.2008 to 14.03.2009 and after completion of the same, he was posted as Security (Force) Member at Panchayat Dam of DVC Unit of CISF. Accordingly, petitioner undergone the Basic Training of Constable at RTC Arakkonam w.e.f. 08.09.2008 to 14.03.2009 and after completion of the same, he was posted as Security (Force) Member at Panchayat Dam of DVC Unit of CISF. The petitioner was working to utter satisfaction of the respondents, but surprisingly, vide impugned order dated 01.09.2010, the services of the petitioner was terminated by the Commandant, CISF, Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad on the allegation that he had not furnished the information regarding involvement in criminal case as well as acquittal in the same in Column No.12 of Attestation Form at the time of his appointment, without giving one month prior notice with salary and allowances of that month, with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached earlier before this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2937 of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.11.2014. It is further the case of the petitioner that he preferred an Appeal under Section 26 of the CISF Rules, 2001 before the Competent Authority, which was also rejected vide impugned order dated 12.06.2015, which is under challenge. 3. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and non-speaking. She further submits that at the time of appointment, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner and even when the application form was filled up, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner as he was acquitted/discharged by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2006 and as such, petitioner while filling up the verification roll/ application form had given answer ‘No’ in reply to questions relating to arrest, prosecution detention, correction, punishment of fine etc. She further submits that there is no concealment of fact. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. She further submits that there is no concealment of fact. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- UOI vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the requirement of the service rules, the character and antecedents was required to be verified from the concerned District Authority after appointment and as such, the same was called from District Magistrate, Nadia in which it was informed that petitioner was involved in Case No. 651 C/02 under Section 323/427 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was acquitted under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C on 06.09.2006, but the petitioner had not furnished the said information in Column No. 12 of Attestation Form at the time of his appointment and as such, the petitioner suppressed the factual information in the Attestation Form for his personal gain, which is best known to him, although there was a clear cut ‘Warning’ at Col. No. 1 and 03 of the Attestation Form that 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. Further, 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. Mr. Vidyarthi, further argues that petitioner had filled up an Attestation Form at the time of appointment on 26.08.2008, wherein he willfully suppressed this fact, ignoring the warning mentioned in the Attestation Form, this amounts to Breach of Agreement between the employee and the employer and thereby the petitioner rendered himself unfit for further retention in service and as such, rightly the Commandant, CISF Unit BCCL, Dhanbad terminated the petitioner from services during the probation itself vide order dated 27.08.2010/01.09.2010, by giving one month’s pay in lieu of one month notice, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.06.2015 and there is no illegality or infirmity, violation of any rules in the impugned orders. The petitioner had given wrong declaration at the time of his appointment, which was confirmed subsequently at the time of verification from/Attestation form. The petitioner had given wrong declaration at the time of his appointment, which was confirmed subsequently at the time of verification from/Attestation form. He further submits that petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of two years and 06 months from the date of passing of appellate order and as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there has been a suppression of fact in giving the information in the Attestation Form by the petitioner after the appointment. The Attestation Form is at Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit, which clearly stipulates that ‘‘Warning” at Column No.1 to 3, which reads thus:- 1. The furnishing of false information or suppresion 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. 2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. Subsequent to the completion and submission of this 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. 3. 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 notices at any time during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated. 7. Further, in Column 12 as well as after (k) of the said Form, there has been a relevant point also, which reads thus:- 12. (a) Have you ever been arrested ? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted ? (c) have you ever been kept under detention ? After (k) : If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is Yes give full particulars of the case /arrest /detention /fine /conviction /sentence /punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the court/University/Educational Authority etc. At the time of filling up this Form. 8. (c) have you ever been kept under detention ? After (k) : If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is Yes give full particulars of the case /arrest /detention /fine /conviction /sentence /punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the court/University/Educational Authority etc. At the time of filling up this Form. 8. The petitioner while filling up the said Attestation Form at the time of appointment had answered the aforesaid column as ‘No’, which clearly shows that he willfully suppressed the fact that he has already been involved in the criminal case though acquitted/discharged prior to appointment, ignoring the ‘Warning’ mentioned into the Attestation Form and as such, the petitioner wanted to conceal his criminal antecedents and if the petitioner was honest and fair, he could have clearly mentioned about his arrest and acquittal/discharge and as such, the same amounts to suppression of fact and Breach of Agreement also. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , wherein His Lordship held that:- 3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 263, where a teacher was employed in a municipal school which was taken over by the Government and who was absorbed in government service in 1972 subject to verification of antecedents and medical fitness. The termination order was passed on the basis of a report made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in government service, as he had taken part in “RSS and Jan Sangh activities”. There was no allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. There was no allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce “McCarthyism” into India which is not healthy to the philosophy of our Constitution. It was observed by this Court that most students and most young men who take part in political activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever lasting discredit? Sometimes they feel strongly on injustice and resist. They are sometimes pushed into the forefront by elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all these young men be debarred from public employment? Is government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole business of seeking police report about the political belief and association of the past political activities of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 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. 9. In cases where there is suppression of relevant information or submission of false information in Attestation Form/Verification Form in regard to criminal prosecution, acquittal, arrest /pendency of criminal case against the candidate/employee, it is always discretionary power of employer to take decision to terminate or retain the employee. Admittedly, the employees are required to furnish correct information relating to their criminal character and antecedents in the Attestation Form/Verification Form, before or after their induction in the service. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, an incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent. 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 mentioning of required information. 10. As a sequel to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of considered view that admittedly, the petitioner had given wrong declaration at the time of filling up the application form, which was subsequently confirmed at the time of Attestation Form after appointment and as such, the petitioner suppressed the factual information for his personal gain. Constables are the Members of a Discipline Force, concealment amounts to indiscipline and violation of Rules and also Breach of Agreement, warrants ouster from service and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. Constables are the Members of a Discipline Force, concealment amounts to indiscipline and violation of Rules and also Breach of Agreement, warrants ouster from service and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. There is no merit in the instant case and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 11. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.