Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vinod Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 31 May, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2265/2010 This the 31st day of May 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Shri Vinod Kumar, Roll No.942128 s/o Shri Ramavtar r/o village Village & PO Kathuwas Tehsil Behror, District Alwar Rajasthan 301704 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chuahan) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, IP Estate MSO Building, New Delhi 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Recruitment, New Police Lines Kingsway Camp, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant has filed OA-2054/2008 whereby pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2008, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi passed an order holding that the applicant was not found suitable for the post because of suppression of the fact of his involvement in a criminal case and his candidature was rejected. However, this Tribunal vide its order dated 10.12.2009 remitted the case to the authorities to reconsider the case again taking notice of the circumstance that he had been acquitted and also taking notice of the totality of the circumstances to the fact that the criminal court had chosen to send the applicant to be dealt under the Probation of Offenders Act and pass a fresh order.
2. Pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier OA, the respondents have now passed fresh order dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure A-1) holding that the acquittal or discharge in a criminal case is not the issue but the issue is that the applicant suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case in the relevant column of attestation form and tried to get undue benefit by adopting deceitful means with malafide intention. Accordingly, the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police was rejected. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Tribunal.
3. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and the respondents have filed their reply wherein they have supported the impugned order on the basis of reasoning given therein.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no proper show cause notice was given to the applicant and the impugned order in the earlier OA was quashed. He has further argued that mentioning of the factum of the criminal case in the attestation form is an inadvertent mistake and the same cannot be taken as concealment for obtaining the employment by deceitful means. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the reasoning given by the appropriate authority while rejecting the claim of the applicant pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the earlier OA, which thus reads:-
Briefly, the facts of the case are that you had applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during recruitment held in the year 2007 and selected provisionally against Roll No.942128, subject to verification of character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. On receipt of your character and antecedents report from Distt. Magistrate/Alwar (Rajasthan), you were found involved in a criminal case FIR No.107/2007, dated 01.07.2007 U/S 143/323/341/427 IPC, Police Station Madan, Distt. Alwar (Raj). Later on, the said criminal case was decided by the Honble Court of ACJM/Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) vide order dated 03.01.2008 and you were acquitted under section 323/341/427 IPC as both the parties had compromised. But you were found guilty by the court under section 143 IPC and released U/S 3 of Probation of Offenders Act with the directions to keep peace and not repeat such act in future.
It is admitted that when you had applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police on 27.05.2007, there was no criminal case against you at that time. But when you filled up the Attestation Form on 11.11.2007 for verification of your character & antecedents you did not mention the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case which had registered on 01.07.2007 despite clear warning given on the said Form that furnishing any false information or concealing any facts in the Attestation Form will be treated as disqualification which can debar the candidate for the job. In the reply to show cause notice you have mentioned that you were never formally arrested in criminal case FIR No.107/2007, dated 01.07.2007 U/S 143/323/341/427 IPC, Police Station Madan, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) and for that reason you inadvertently could not mention the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case in Attestation Form. It must be stated that Column No.11(B) of Attestation Form required information about that any FIR has been registered against you and no about your arrest. But you failed to mention the registration of the case against you. Hence, your contention is not tenable. Instead you mentioned in the Attestation Form Mere Khilaf koi abhiyog darg nahi huaa hai. Also it is on the record that in case FIR No.107/2007, dated 01.07.2007 U/S 143/323/341/427 IPC, PS Madan, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) you were tried by the Honble court and acquitted under section 323/341/427 IPC as both the parties had compromised and under section 143 IPC you were found guilty but released U/S 3 of Probation of Offenders Act by the court with the directions to keep peace and not repeat such act in future.
Thus from the above it is clear that at the time of filling up the Attestation Form i.e. on 11.11.2007 the above said criminal case was still pending against you but you did not mention the facts of your involvement in the said criminal case in the relevant columns of the Attestation Form deliberately with malafide intention and suppressed the same despite clear warning given at the top of the said Attestation Form. Acquittal or discharge in a criminal case is not the issue, the issue is that you suppressed the fact of your involvement in a criminal case in the relevant columns of the Attestation Form and tried to get undue benefit by adopting deceitful means with malfide intention.
6. Thus, as can be seen from the facts, as stated above, it is evident that the observations made by this Tribunal in the earlier OA were taken into consideration by the appropriate authority and still the appropriate authority has held the applicant guilty of suppressing the fact of his involvement in a criminal case in relevant column of attestation form and the appropriate authority has specifically held that acquittal or discharge in a criminal is not the issue, which led to rejection of the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive). Thus, in the light of the finding recorded by the appropriate authority, as reproduced above, it is not permissible for us to interfere in the matter, more particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the latest decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Arun Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (WP (C) No.161/2011) decided on 17.1.2011 where under similar circumstances relying upon the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & others (CA No.9913/2010) decided on 24.11.2010, the High Court has held that in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court while seeking public employment anyone who withholds relevant information and suppresses the truth by giving incorrect information would not be entitled to public employment. That was also a case where the petitioner before the High Court was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 IPC but while filling up the statutory form subsequently after a lapse of more than two years, the applicant has suppressed the relevant fact. Accordingly as per the ratio, as laid down by the High Court in the aforesaid case based upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), the applicant herein is not entitled to any relief.
7. At this stage, we may also refer to the decision of this Tribunal in Shri Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & others, (OA No.3917/2010) decided on 5.4.2011 wherein similar issue was involved and this Tribunal relying upon number of decisions of the Apex Court has declined to grant relief. At this stage, it will be useful to quote relevant portion of the decision of this Tribunal in the aforesaid case, which thus reads:
11. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, as rendered in Daya Shankar Yadavs case (supra), which has been also noticed in the earlier part of this order and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in C.A.No.1430/2007.
12. It may be relevant to state here that in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav, the Honble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of seeking the information is to ascertain character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the questions in the relevant Columns truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself, would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed security service and has also culled out certain principles in paragraph 9 of the judgment. For the purpose of discharging of service of the probationer or perspective employee, which can form basis for refusing the employment, the Honble Apex Court in the said case has also categorically stated that the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in the reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence is distinct ground, which shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post. The Apex Court after taking note of the information submitted by the appellant before it on facts held that the appellant had knowingly made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case and, therefore, the employer was justified in dispensing with his services for not being truthful in giving material information regarding his antecedents, which were relevant for employment in a uniformed service. It may be further stated that the judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra) after noticing its various earlier decisions and it was thereafter that the Apex Court has culled out certain principles in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, which have been reproduced in earlier part of this order.
13. If one has regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court of Delhi and while upholding the decision of the High Court had made an observation after noticing the observations made by Lord Denning and observed as under:
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.
At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
14. Thus, as can be seen from the portion quoted above, it cannot be said that the Apex Court has given a declaration of law that the factum of furnishing a false information or suppression of any material information in the application form has to be condoned and is not the relevant factor to reject the candidature of the applicant on this ground and that gravity of criminal offence is a relevant factor, which should also be taken into consideration while rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground of furnishing of false information in the application/attestation forms, despite warning to the effect that the candidature of the applicant can be rejected on the ground of furnishing of wrong information, which may entail cancellation of the candidature and also signing the false declaration thereby undertaking that in case any information furnished by the person is found to be false or material information is concealed, as submitted by him, the candidature may be canceled and also the claim for recruitment stands forfeited. That apart, the Honble Apex Court while dismissing the said Civil Appeal in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has not taken note of the previous judgments rendered by it and declaration of the law laid down by the Apex Court, more particularly, the ratio decidendi of the decision in Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) whereby the Apex Court has held that where an employee is required to give his personal data in an attestation form in connection with his appointment (either at the time of or thereafter) and if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. Thus, in view of the declaration of the law, as laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), which has been subsequently followed in number of decisions and recently in Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), we are of the view that the applicant cannot take any assistance from the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra). As such, we are inclined to follow the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav (supra).
15. At this stage, we may also notice another contention put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & others, 2000 LAB I.C. 1885 wherein it has been held that once a person has been acquitted of the criminal charge, it has to be deemed that he was never involved in any criminal case and such acquittal would operate retrospectively and cancellation of the offer of selection on the ground that he did not mention the said fact in the relevant form is of no consequence. Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned order and mandamus was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Mazdoor.
16. We have also given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant based upon this decision and we are of the view that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be said to be a good law in view of the subsequent decisions rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 SCC (L&S) 306 as well as Sukhen Chandra Das, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 911, which have been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.
17. Accordingly, the OA being bereft of any merit is dismissed without any order as to costs.
8. Thus, in view of the reasoning given hereinabove, the OA is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/