Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pranav Kumar (Roll No.2899) vs Commissioner Of Police on 12 November, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO.393/2009 New Delhi, this the 12th day of November, 2009 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, VC (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMEBR (A) Pranav Kumar (Roll No.2899) S/o Shri Shiv Kumar, R/o B-57/C, Police Colony, Model Town-II, Delhi 110 009 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Arun Bhardwaj) versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi .Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) O R D E R By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A):
The candidature of the applicant for the post of Head Constable under the Delhi Police has been cancelled on grounds of non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case in the relevant columns of the Application and the Attestation Forms. The applicant, who had been provisionally selected on the basis of the recruitment held in the year 2006 seeks quashing of the impugned final order dated 19.11.2008 cancelling his candidature and the preceding show cause notice dated 23.09.2008. Besides, a direction for appointment, from the date his batch-mates were appointed, with all consequential benefits has also been sought.
2. We heard the learned counsels, Shri Arun Bhardwaj appearing for the applicant and Shri R.N. Singh for the respondents. We also perused carefully the materials on record, besides the relevant files made available by the respondents counsel.
While there is no dispute about the non-disclosure in the application form; varying stands have been taken regarding disclosure in the Attestation Form. As per the applicant, the non-disclosure in the first instance was due to an inadvertent oversight which he suo-mottu corrected at the subsequent stage in the Attestation From. However, the Respondents have rebutted this contention factually with the submissions of alleged manipulation in one copy of the Attestation From.
3. The criminal case in question pertained to FIR No. 523/99 under Section 307/34 IPC, PS: Moti Nagar dated 06.09.1999. Subsequently the applicant had been acquitted vide the Trial Courts judgment dated 21.08.2001.
4. In response to an advertisement for recruitment in Delhi Police, the applicant, while filling up the application form dated 9.10.2006, had made following entry in the relevant column no.15 of the Application Form:-
15. Have you ever been arrested, or any FIR registered against you, or have you been tried in the court of law for any offence or convicted by the Court, or filled any bond asked for by the Court? At the time of filling this form is any criminal case or proceeding pending in the court of law or are you involved in any civil case? If so, give details. - N.A This Form was bilingual i.e. in English as well as Hindi.
5. After the prescribed test, the applicant was declared provisionally selected subject to the satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. The Police verification form (Attestation Form) was submitted by the applicant to the HQrs on 11.7.2008. This was in two copies, one being retained in the HQrs and the other for being sent for verification to the concerned Office. A copy of the attestation form was forwarded vide letter No.48020/Rect. Cell/P.HQ dated 17.7.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi for verification of his character and antecedents. The verification report was received vide confidential letter No.10603/CV/V dated 10.8.2008 with the remarks about the registration of the aforementioned FIR and his subsequent acquittal.
On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the entries in the relevant columns regarding previous involvement in a criminal case are different in the two copies of the Attestation Form. While the copy retained with the HQ mentions NO in column 13 (a), (b) and (c), copy of the Attestation Form received back after verification under column 13(b) the above facts of FIR and acquittal had been mentioned, which prima facie seemed to be after some tinkering with the original entries. Besides, different entries have been shown in column 14 regarding the two references of responsible persons. Further, the authority issuing the Character Certificate has also been changed. Considering the crucial importance of these facts, particularly the entries in column 13, a comparative chart of the same in both the copies of the Attestation Form is being reproduced on the basis of the original records produced by the respondents:-
i) Entries in the copy retained at the HQ:
13. (a) Have you been arrested/prosecuted kept under detention of bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence of debarred/disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at it examination selection or debarred from any other educational authority/institution : -NO-
(b) Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against you in any Police Station? If yes, give complete details. No-
(c) If any case pending against you in any court of law university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this attestation form (if the answer to (a) and (b) is yes, full particulars of the case, arrest, detention, fine, conviction, sentence etc. in the nature of the case pending in the country, university/education authority etc., at the time of filling up this form should be given - No-
Entries in the copy received after verification:
13. (a) Have you been arrested/prosecuted kept under detention of bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence of debarred/disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at it examination selection or debarred from any other educational authority/institution : -NO-
(b) Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against you in any Police Station? If yes, give complete details: FIR No.523/99 u/s 307/34 IPC DTD 6-9-99 P/S MOTI NAGAR, WEST DISTT, DELHI. I have been acquitted by Honble Court Sh. T.D. Keshav (ASJ), Tis Hazari, Delhi-6 on dtd 21-8-2001.
(c) If any case pending against you in any court of law university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this attestation form (if the answer to (a) and (b) is yes, full particulars of the case, arrest, detention, fine, conviction, sentence etc. in the nature of the case pending in the country, university/education authority etc., at the time of filling up this form should be given - No-. NOTE: Please also see the warning at the top of the attestation form. These forms also carried at the top of the Form the specific WARNING in the following words:-
The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be disqualification and is likely to render candidature unfit for employment under the Government. There was a specific mention that any false or incomplete information found to have been concealed would be liable to lead to cancellation of the candidature.
On issue of a show cause notice dated 23.9.2008, in the written reply the stand of the applicant was that the omission in the application form was inadvertent due to an oversight and clerical mistake. The plea of being a layman was also taken. However, as an extenuating factor it had been pleaded that subsequent to his selection when he had filed the Attestation Form, the fact regarding the FIR and subsequent acquittal had been clearly mentioned. The applicant also pleaded that as he had been acquitted in the case, there could be no motive for him for the allegedly deliberate concealment.
The respondents stand, however, that both at the stage of filling up of the application from and the attestation form, the applicant had not revealed the fact of his previous involvement in a criminal case. The learned counsel Shri R.N. Singh would submit that the copy of the Attestation Form received along with the Verification Report shows that the disclosure by the applicant had come as an after-thought and had manifested itself in manipulations in the aforesaid entry most possibly with the connivance from someone in the Department. The learned counsel would also submit that a Vigilance Inquiry in the matter was already going on. As it was a case of clear non-disclosure, after due consideration the candidature of the applicant had been cancelled by the respondents.
8. The learned counsel, Shri Arun Bhardwaj, however, would stick to his stand that the applicant had suo-motu disclosed the fact of the criminal case and acquittal in the Attestation Form. Disowning any responsibility for whatever transpired with the document under the custody of the department, the learned counsel would marshal multiple arguments at his command to explain away the different entries in the two Forms. These however, would be rebutted vehemently by the respondents counsel.
The OA raises the plea of mere involvement in a criminal case not being a ground for ineligibility as per the relevant Rules i.e. Rule 6 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. Further, citing the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Girish Bhardwaj vs. Union of India, 1989 Vol.IV AISLJ 945, it would be averred that since the applicant had been exonerated from all the criminal charges, the same could not be held out against him as an impediment to his appointment. The argument of certain cases where even on conviction, the persons had been given Government service would be cited by relying upon certain decisions of the Apex Court (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Raghu Shankar Raghuvanshi & Anr, (83 Vol1 SLJSLC 392) and further in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana , (1996) 4 SCC 17. The plea of discrimination by the respondents taking a lenient view in similar situations would also be taken though no documentary proofs would be produced in support. All these contentions made in the OA have been rebutted by the respondents stating them to be not applicable considering the present facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The facts in this case speak for themselves. As is evident from the extracts in the aforesaid para-5, while the copy of the Attestation Form retained at the HQrs bears a clear entry No. against column 13 (a), (b) & (c); the one received after verification while showing the mention of such a disclosure demonstrates clear marks of manipulations. In the given circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the applicant has not disclosed the fact of registration of an FIR against him and his subsequent acquittal either at the time of submission of the Application Form or in the Attestation Form. The contentious copy of the Attestation Form being relied upon by the applicant in support of the plea of suo-motu disclosure is not found fit to be relied upon.
We also note that the FIR and the acquittal in question had occurred much before even the filling of the application form. Further, the applicant who was a candidate for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) and was a graduate by educational qualification could not have taken the pleas of oversight or incomprehension as a layman. This is even more so considering that the Application Form was bilingual in English and Hindi. The plea of inadvertent oversight is also not found to be acceptable considering a very clear warning at the top of both the Application Form and the Attestation Form about furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information amounting to disqualification and likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
10. The respondents have mainly relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs. Ram Rattan Yadav (JT 2003 (2) SC 256) wherein it was held that if any employee conceals the facts in the Application Form he has no claim to remain in Government job. Besides, they have also cited following judicial rulings on the subject to support their stand:-
Pawan Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr SLP No.8253/2006 decided by the apex court on16.01.2009;
Rameshwar Prasad Meena vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr - Writ Petition (Civil) No.7548 of 2003 decided by Honble Delhi High Court on 11.10.2006;
Narender Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr OA No.29/2007 decided by CAT (Principal Bench) on 7.7.2007 Rajbir vs Commissioner of Police & Ors OA No.417/2008 decided by CAT (PB) on 2.12.2008.
On behalf of the applicant, reliance has been placed in the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2537 of 1998 titled as Commissioner of Police vs Dhawal Singh. A careful perusal of the judgments produced by the respondents in support reveals that after due consideration, the claims for appointment despite non-disclosure of their criminal antecedents had not found favour in judicial review. The judgment in Dhawal Singhs case (supra) being relied upon by the applicant, had been duly considered by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal and found to be distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. To conclude, the cause for cancellation of the candidature of the applicant in this case is not the nature of the of the criminal offence or the acquittal therefrom. On the other hand, the issue is the fact of non-disclosure of an important information by the applicant while filling up the application form and subsequently in the Attestation Form after the provisional selection. The applicant, who is a graduate cannot afford to take the plea of being a layman and not understanding the implications of this. This was too important a point particularly given the very clear stipulation in the Application Form and the Attestation Form including the warnings. The fact that the Application Form was by lingual including Hindi is also relevant. We do not find either the facts of the case or the judicial rulings cited before us as tilting the balance in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the OA is found to be bereft of merit and dismissed hereby with no order as to costs.
(VEENA CHHOTRAY) (M. RAMACHANDRAN)
MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J)
/pkr/