Allahabad High Court
Sahdev Ram vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 18 September, 2019
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 16 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50472 of 2015 Petitioner :- Sahdev Ram Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Pandey,K.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,D.K.Mishra,S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by respondent no. 2 wherein the claim of petitioner for reinstatement has been rejected and order of termination dated 11.04.2006 has been upheld.
3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition are, petitioner was enlisted in CRPF by Group Center CRPF, Lucknow against vacancy of GC Agartala/ 188 Bn on the post of Safai Karamchari on 27.12.2005. According to petitioner, his services are governed by Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 and also provisions of Central Civil Service (CCS) Rules, 1965 are applicable. Petitioner after completing his necessary training joined at the office of Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF') Group Center, Lucknow. On 19.04.2006 the GC CRPF, Allahabad forwarded the case regarding verification of character antecedents in respect of petitioner to District Magistrate, Ballia. On 30.11.2006, District Magistrate, Ballia intimated that Case No. 572A/98, under Section 147/ 323 IPC was already registered in name of petitioner at Police Station, Rasra and the same is pending in the Court.
4. Due to furnishing of false information, services of petitioner were terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 w.e.f. 11.04.2007.
5. This termination order was challenged by petitioner through Writ Petition No. 22169 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.05.2007, against which a Special Appeal No. (D) 592 of 2007 was filed but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.12.2009.
6. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal/ representation on 29.10.2014 as well as he preferred an appeal before I.G.P. Chattisgarh Sector CRPF, Raipur on 16.12.2014. The said appeal was rejected vide orders dated 13.05.2015. The present petition has been filed assailing the said order as well as the termination order dated 11.04.2006.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after petitioner came to know of the fact that some criminal case was pending against him at Ballia, he inquired about the said case and came to know that the alleged incident was of the year 1998, while his date of birth is 10.07.1986, petitioner at that time was 12 years old and was not aware of the pendency of any case at the time of employment in CRPF. He submitted that the petitioner has not concealed any material fact from the authorities concerned and has disclosed all facts correctly and the said case was not in his knowledge, as he was minor at the time of the alleged incident. He further submitted that in said criminal case petitioner was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2007 and the copy of the acquittal order is on the record as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.
8. Sri Pandey further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 664 and another judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2011) 14 SCC 709. It has been further submitted that the termination order is bad, as petitioner has been acquitted in the sole criminal case relied upon by the authorities in terminating his services.
9. Per contra, Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the services of petitioner was temporary and he can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and no opportunity of hearing is required. He further submitted that petitioner had willfully suppressed/ concealed the fact while filling the verification roll and his services were rightly terminated as per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. He further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, in which the Court had considered the earlier decision in case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Ram Kumar (supra) and had laid the guidelines regarding the eligibility conditions/ criteria and verification of character and antecedents. He laid emphasis on Para Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 of the judgment, which are extracted hereasunder:-
"32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.
33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100, it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information.
34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
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.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or 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.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records of the case, I find that the services of the petitioner which was temporary in nature was terminated by the order of respondent no. 4 which was affirmed by respondent no. 2 on 13.05.2015. It is not in dispute that at the time petitioner submitted his application, criminal case under Section 147/323 of IPC was pending against him at Ballia which he failed to disclose in the verification roll in Column 12, which came into light when the verification was made by the District Magistrate, Ballia. However, at the time of the alleged incidence, the petitioner was only 12 years of age, i.e. he was minor. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was acquitted on 12.09.2007 in the said case; that is after his appointment into the services of the respondents.
11. Looking to the nature of the alleged offence and the age at which the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner as well as the post for which he applied in the respondent Department, that is Safai Karamchari, the punishment of termination simplicitor on the ground of non-disclosure without giving due consideration to the aforesaid fact would not be appropriate and the authorities concerned should consider the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
12. In view of the above, the orders dated 13.05.2015 and 11.04.2006 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and the guidelines so framed thereunder. The writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2019 V.S.Singh