Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 769 (ALL)

Ravendra Singh v. Union Of India

2024-03-12

DONADI RAMESH, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ - A No. 68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2 in connected Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 as well as Shri A.K.Gaur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Union of India in both writ petitions. 2. Writ - A No. 68541 of 2015 has been filed with the following prayer:- "I. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 (Anneuxre No.1 to this writ petition) to the extent denying full wages, allowances and other service benefit to the petitioner, from the date when Junior to the petitioner in merit/selection list as given appointment by the respondent No.1 to 3. II. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to 3 to treat the petitioner in service and pay salary and other allowances etc. admissible to the post from date Junior in the merit/select list was given appointment in service, till the date petitioner is taken on duty by the respondents." 3. Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 has been filed with the following prayer: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure No.1 of the writ petition) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No.1.” 4. The facts in both writ petitions are similar, therefore, they are being decided finally with a common judgment. 5. Facts in brief are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Railway Recruitment Board, petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh applied for the post of Junior Engineer-II (Tele). He appeared in the written test and declared successful, subsequently, he was called for interview and after being selected, his name was sent to General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur vide Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer letter dated 31.08.2011. Thereafter, he joined in the respondent organization on 02.11.2011. Subsequently, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice to Ravendra Singh on 12.03.2012 for concealment of fact in replying Item No.11(b) in the Attestation Form. Thereafter, he submitted his reply on 23.03.2011, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Considering the said reply the respondents have passed an order on 10/25.05.2012, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice to Ravendra Singh on 12.03.2012 for concealment of fact in replying Item No.11(b) in the Attestation Form. Thereafter, he submitted his reply on 23.03.2011, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Considering the said reply the respondents have passed an order on 10/25.05.2012, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, petitioner- Ravendra Singh filed Original Application No.1592 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, with a consequential prayer to treat the petitioner in service from the date when junior in merit in the select list was given appointment and pay the salary and other consequential benefits including seniority etc. 6. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal, the facts of the case have not been disputed. It has been submitted that the panel dated 31.08.2011 supplied by R.R.B. has expired on 31.08.2012 in terms of Railway Board Letter dated 15.03.2012 and it will not be feasible to give appointment to those candidates who have furnished false information and suppressed any factual information And the said warning is also contained in Railway Board’s Letter dated 20.10.2013 at Item No.1 in the Attestation Form. It was further stated that the applicant has furnished false information in his Attestation Form and deliberately concealed the fact regarding his prosecution in a criminal matter. It was further contended that earlier the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal case registered under Section 323/504/325 IPC. 7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh is that due to ignorance and mistake, Ravendra Singh has not given true answer to the question relating to prosecution. It is submitted that in the year 2001, an N.C.R. under Section 323, 504 IPC was registered against him and subsequently a chargesheet under Section 323, 324 and 504 IPC was submitted. In the said case, complainant as well as injured Virvati did not support the prosecution version and stated that they named the applicant -Ravendra Singh on saying of villagers and based on the said statement Ravendra Singh was acquitted from charges vide judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh dated 04.03.2005. In the said case, complainant as well as injured Virvati did not support the prosecution version and stated that they named the applicant -Ravendra Singh on saying of villagers and based on the said statement Ravendra Singh was acquitted from charges vide judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh dated 04.03.2005. It was further submitted that at the time of incident Ravendra Singh was aged about 18 years and at the time of filling the Attestation Form, he was 25 years old, submission therefore is that such minor indiscretions should be condoned. 8. Both the learned counsel have relied upon several judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant- Ravendra Singh with the following observation:- “11. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 10/25.04.2012 passed by Respondent No.3 is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to take a lenient view in the matter and take his joining on the post, he was selected. Respondents are also directed to treat him in service form the date his junior has been given appointment but he will not be entitled to the payment of salary for the period he was not actually worked. No order as to costs.” 10. Assailing the said order, Union of India as well as petitioner in Writ A No.68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2 in Writ A No.41433 of 2015-Ravendra Singh both filed separate writ petitions before this Court. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has contended that the order dated 10/25.04.2012 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with the legislation which is in vogue and he has placed reliance upon warning given in the Attestation Form, which reads as under:- ^^1- lk{kkadu izi= esa >wBh lwpuk nsuk vFkok fdlh Hkh izdkj dh rF;kRed lwpuk dks fNikuk vugZrk ekuh tk;sxh vkSj ,slk djus ls vH;FkhZ ljdkj ds v/khu ukSdjh ds fy, v;ksX; Bgjk;k tk ldrk gSA 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. 2- ;fn bl izi= dks Hkjus rFkk Hkstus ds i'pkr~ gokykr esa j[kk tk;s] nks"kh Bgjk;k tk;s] oftZr vkfn fd;k tk;s] rks mlds ckjs esa ;FkkfLFkrh la?k yksd lsok vk;ksx vFkok jsy HkrhZ cksMZ vFkok ml izkf/kdkjh] ftls igys lk{;kadu izi= Hkstk x;k gS] dks C;kSjs dh rqjar lwpuk nh tk;A ,slk u djus ij ;g le>k tk;sxk fd rF;kRed lwpuk fNik;h x;h gSaA If detained, convicted, debarred etc. Subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the Railway Recruitment Board or the Authority to whom to Attestation From has been sent earlier as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. 3- ;fn fdlh O;fDr ds lsok&dky es] fdlh Hkh le; ;g rF; uksfVl esa vkrk gS fd bl lk{;kadu izi= esa >wBh lwpuk nh x;h gS vFkok rF;kRed lwpuk fNik;h x;h gS rks mldh lsok,¡ lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA 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.” 12. However, the information given by the petitioner in the Attestation Form on question that “have you ever been prosecuted”, he replied “No”, which is contrary to the warning given in the Attestation Form. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that as the respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh has concealed material facts by giving wrong information, therefore, the respondent no.3 has rightly passed the order dated 10/25.04.2012 cancelling the appointment of Ravendra Singh. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore Vs. J. Raghunees, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379, wherein also the respondent-candidate has not disclosed the complete information with his involvement in criminal case and his appointment was also rejected. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment read as under:- “13. J. Raghunees, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379, wherein also the respondent-candidate has not disclosed the complete information with his involvement in criminal case and his appointment was also rejected. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment read as under:- “13. The issue in the matter is not of eligibility of the respondent to the post in the light of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 rather that of suppression of material information which was required to be disclosed in column 15 of the verification roll. The respondent has certainly not disclosed the correct information. His honorable acquittal or acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not material and relevant but what is relevant is the full and complete disclosure of the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case which has been suppressed by him. 14. In Avtar Singh case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar kind of situation summarised the legal position by stating that (i) Information given by the candidate to the employer as to his conviction, acquittal, 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. (ii) In cases where conviction or acquittal had already taken place before filling the application/verification form, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (iii) and even if the employee had made truthful declaration of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents of the candidate/employee and cannot be compelled to appoint him/her. 15. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of the criminal case and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. Secondly, even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents. 16. Secondly, even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents. 16. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment.” 13. Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ- A No. 68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2 in connected Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 contended that on the date of submitting the Attestation Form the petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh had already acquitted from charges and no case was pending against him, therefore, replying the question in the Attestation Form that “have you ever been prosecuted” he answered “No”. He further argued that in the year 2001 an N.C.R. under Section 323, 504 IPC was registered against the applicant and in trial chargesheet has been submitted against him under Section 323, 324 and 504 IPC, out of which two offences, namely, offence under section 323 and 504 IPC is compoundable in nature and Section 324 IPC provided for imprisonment for a period of three years only. In support of his argument he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 180, paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 whereof are quoted as under: “24. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:- "11. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:- "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. 13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. 19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. 19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs." 25. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696, no doubt, a case where a candidate made the disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking through Navin Sinha, J. made the following telling observation which resonates with the hard realities of everyday existence: "5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case." 26. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case." 26. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 530 and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 & 93.7. Even the broad principles set out therein recognize that each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to examine whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh (Supra) in para 38.2 has held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (Supra) the principle that, in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) with the following crucial para in Avtar Singh (Supra): "35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases." 27. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases." 27. We have also examined the judgment in Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore vs. J. Raghunees, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1379 and we find that the case of the appellant is more aligned with the facts in the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar (supra), Sandeep (supra) and Ram Kumar (supra). Hence, we find that the judgment in J. Raghunees (supra) is clearly distinguishable. 28. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered. 29. Having discussed the legal position above, it is necessary to set out certain special features that obtain in the case at hand. i. The appellant hails from the small village Bagapar, P.O. Kataura, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, U.P. ii. On the date of the application, there was no criminal case pending and there was no suppression in the application form. iii. The criminal case was registered when he was 21 years of age for the offences very similar to the one referred to in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and even in the criminal case he was acquitted. iv. No doubt, the multiple columns in the verification affidavit, questions were asked from him in different permutations and combinations. He must have been in a deep dilemma as there was an imminent prospect of losing his employment. v. Most importantly, we find from the verification documents fairly and candidly made available by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the verification report after noticing the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was good, that no complaints were found against him and that his general reputation was good. vi. v. Most importantly, we find from the verification documents fairly and candidly made available by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the verification report after noticing the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was good, that no complaints were found against him and that his general reputation was good. vi. Not stopping there, the person who visited the spot even wished him a bright future in the report. vii. The SHO, Gauri Bazar Police Station, who forwarded the report to the Superintendent of Police after reiterating the contents of the report observed that he was acquitted and no appeal was filed. Further, there was no other case pending and nor was any case registered against the candidate. viii. The SHO certified the character of the candidate as excellent and that he was eligible to do Government Service under the State Government. He annexed the report of the Police Station as well as the report of the Gram Pradhan and the Court documents. ix. The Superintendent of Police, in his letter to the Commandant, endorsed the report and reiterated that the character of the candidate was excellent. x. While examining whether the procedure adopted for enquiry by the authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character set out in the earlier part of this judgment. Like it was found in Ram Kumar (supra) instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the broad principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we find that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has to be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases set out hereinabove.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709 15. In fact, both the counsel appearing for petitioner- Ravindra Singh as well as appearing for Union India have agreed with the observations made in Ravindra Kumar (supra), paragraph 30 whereof reads as under:- 30. In fact, both the counsel appearing for petitioner- Ravindra Singh as well as appearing for Union India have agreed with the observations made in Ravindra Kumar (supra), paragraph 30 whereof reads as under:- 30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario. 16. Considering the contentions raised by both the learned counsels, and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J. Raghunees (supra) as well as in Ravindra Kumar (supra). In fact, in Ravindra Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the observations made in J. Raghunees (supra) as well as considering the ratio decided in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . In para 38 of Avtar Singh (supra) it has been categorically held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information, and further held in para 38.4.3 that suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where acquittal had already been recorded, the employer can consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and can take appropriate decision. No doubt, on perusal of the facts of this case that crime registered against the petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh, under Sections 323, 324 and 504 IPC is trivial in nature, and the facts remains that he was acquitted from charges before submitting his Attestation Form. 17. No doubt, on perusal of the facts of this case that crime registered against the petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh, under Sections 323, 324 and 504 IPC is trivial in nature, and the facts remains that he was acquitted from charges before submitting his Attestation Form. 17. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in J. Raghunees (supra), Ravindra Kumar (supra) as well as in Avtar Singh (supra), we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. 18. However, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) that employee is not entitled for any arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served, and the same was also taken care by the Tribunal in its order, accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed.