Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surendra Singh vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2020
Bench: N.V. Ramana, V. Ramasubramanian
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.77 OF 2020
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12082 of 2016)
SURENDRA SINGH … APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order of the Division Bench of the High Court reversing the order of the learned Single Judge and upholding the termination of his services, the appellant has come up with the above appeal.
3. The brief facts sufficient for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant was selected and appointed to the post of Safai Karamchari vide proceeding dated 26.06.2008, but his services were terminated by an order dated 02.03.2009, in terms of the proviso to subrule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Though the order of termination did not spell out the reasons therefor, what triggered the termination was the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant at the time of his appointment, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 336, 294 and 506 of the Indian Signature Not Verified Penal Code and the suppression of the same by the appellant in Column 12 Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2020.01.13 17:13:30 IST Reason: of the verification form that he filled up while applying for appointment to 1 the post.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of termination on the short ground that within a few days of the termination of his services, he was discharged by the criminal court, by an order dated 13.03.2009. However, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority.
5. Accordingly, the appellant filed a statutory appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF. But the same was dismissed by the appellate authority, forcing the appellant to approach the High Court once again by way of a writ petition.
6. Though the Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the appellant and directed reinstatement without back wages, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, on the short ground that the issue of suppression of material particulars cannot be swept under the carpet. Therefore, challenging the order of the Division Bench, the appellant is before us. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the decision of this Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others1 and several orders passed by this Court in various cases such as Civil Appeal Nos.18798 of 2017, 18800 of 2017 and 18799 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017.
7. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the appellant sought similar directions permitting him to file a detailed 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 2 representation and directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
8. We do not know, how far the decision in Avtar Singh (supra) will go to the rescue of the appellant, especially in the light of various parameters laid down therein. Moreover, cases of persons appointed long time earlier and allowed to serve for a fairly long period of time may not stand on the same footing as cases where the suppression was detected and action taken within a short duration of time from the date of appointment.
9. Be that as it may, all that the appellant wants is only a limited direction, as given in the orders dated 15.11.2017 passed in other cases. Therefore, without expressing any opinion about the eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of the judgment in Avtar Singh, this appeal is disposed of permitting him to file a representation within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order. Within four weeks, thereafter, the second respondent may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the various parameters laid down in Avtar Singh. There will be no order as to costs.
…..…………....................J (N.V. Ramana) .…..………......................J (V. Ramasubramanian) New Delhi January 08, 2020.
3
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12082/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-02-2016 in WA No.314/2012 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Gwalior) SURENDRA SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No.2/2016 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION Date : 08-01-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Guru Sharan Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rana Prashant, Adv.
Mr. Animesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Monga, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4
5