Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 12 December, 2013
Writ Petition No.15466/2013 12.12.2013
Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of M.P. on advance notice.
Heard on admission.
Termination of petitioner's service from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, during probation, by order-dated 6.7.2013 for concealing the fact of his involvement in a criminal case in the verification roll is the cause for filing the present writ petition.
Petitioner while on daily wages in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sagar was appointed on a regular basis on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector by order-dated 9.8.2012. The appointment by regularization was on probation for two years. The petitioner was required to fill the verification roll wherein he concealed the facts about his involvement in criminal case which, when enquired from the Police Authorities, it was informed by the Inspector General of Police (Security) Madhya Pradesh vide his letter no.fo'kk@21@Ogj@2012&17¼,Q&588@12½ dated 24.12.2012 that an offence vide Crime No.227/2009 under Sections 336, 294, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner which, by order-dated 16.9.2011, was compromised.
On receiving the information, the petitioner was noticed on 1.2.2013 as to concealment of information of his involvement in criminal case. The petitioner did not dispute the fact of non-disclosure of criminal case in the verification :: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.15466/2013roll. It was contended that the non-disclosure was a bona fide mistake. Not satisfied with the reply, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with by the impugned order.
Assailing the validity of the order-dated 6.7.2013, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that earlier at the time of regularization, the petitioner's candidature for regularization as Assistant Sub-Inspector was rejected by order-dated 23.7.2011 because of pendency of the criminal case; however, later on, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on the basis of compromise arrived at and recorded by order dated 16.9.2011. It is contended that thereafter, the petitioner's service was regularized and though in verification roll, he did not disclose the fact about criminal case about the same was a bona fide mistake and not deliberate. It, however, appears from record that earlier since petitioner was debarred from consideration because of pendency of criminal case, on appointment, apprehending that the disclosure may adversely affect his appointment, petitioner concealed the facts. This act of the petitioner was a deliberate one rather than a bona fide mistake.
In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttranchal (2013) 9 SCC 363, it has been held -
"11. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent au- thority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesi- astical or temporal." (Vide: S.P. Chengalvaraya :: 3 ::Writ Petition No.15466/2013
Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349, the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels ev- erything.
22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Gov-
ernment servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be dis- charged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority.
The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such infor- mation is sought with a view to judge the charac- ter and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case.
23. More so, if the initial action is not in conso- nance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla Fundamento ced- it opus"- a foundation being removed, the super-
:: 4 ::
Writ Petition No.15466/2013structure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Com- modum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria ap- plies. The persons violating the law cannot be per- mitted to urge that their offence cannot be sub- jected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650).
Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur).
Similarly, in the case of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 748, it is held :-
"29. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consist- ing of two-Judges and having bestowed our seri- ous consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with such an issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the various cardinal principles before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:
29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the op- tion of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the re- spondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
:: 5 ::Writ Petition No.15466/2013
29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the ap- pointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any in- quiry.
29.4. A candidate having suppressed material in- formation and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5. The Purpose of calling for information re- garding involvement in any criminal case or deten- tion or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruit- ment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and an- tecedents of the candidate in relation to his conti- nuity in service.
29.6. The person who suppressed the material in- formation and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
:: 6 ::Writ Petition No.15466/2013
29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate state- ment or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted. 29.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post. 29.9. An employee in the uniformed service pre- supposes a higher level of integrity as such a per- son is expected to uphold the law and on the con- trary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsi- bility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquit- ted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.
30. When we consider the above principles laid down in the majority of the decisions, the question that looms large before us is when considering such claim by the candidates who deliberately sup- pressed information at the time of recruitment, can :: 7 ::Writ Petition No.15466/2013
there be different yardsticks applied in the matter of grant of relief."
True it is that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench vide decision in Jainendra Singh (supra). The law, how- ever, as laid down therein and in Devendra Kumar (supra) and other decisions relied therein lay down the ratio that where an employment is sought by concealing vital facts which will have a bearing on the employment sought, it is open for the em- ployer to dispense with the service of such incumbent who had chosen not to disclose the antecedents or even denied the same.
In view whereof, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.
The petition, being devoid of substance, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod