Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satya Prakash Pachauri vs Director General Bharat Tibbat Seema on 9 March, 2017
1 W. P. No. 4533/ 2009
(Satya Prakash Pachauri Vs.
The Director General Bharat Tibbat Seema Police & Others)
09.03.2017
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 03.09.2009 whereby petitioner's appeal against termination has been rejected on the ground that petitioner had suppressed information regarding pendency of criminal case at the time of filling of verification form on 02.11.2007.
It is petitioner's contention that vide order dated 18.01.2008, petitioner was acquitted of the criminal case which was registered against him under the provisions of Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and therefore, in the light of the law laid-down in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, petitioner's appeal should have been allowed and now the matter be remanded back to the authorities to consider his case in the light of the acquittal.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the services of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force officials are governed by Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994, wherein Rule 17 deals with termination of service and it is provided that furnishing false/ wrong information at the time of appointment can also be one of the reasons for termination of service. It is further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Rule 22, termination of 2 W. P. No. 4533/ 2009 (Satya Prakash Pachauri Vs. The Director General Bharat Tibbat Seema Police & Others) service on grounds of furnishing false/ incorrect information at the time of appointment is permissible even after issuance of show-cause notice or giving one months' time to the individual before termination of services. In view of such submissions, it is submitted that petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
Reliance has also been placed on the order of this Court dated 02.12.2016 passed in W.P. No.1150/2013 [Sunil Kumar Ahirwar Vs. Union of India & Others], wherein similar controversy has been decided by this Court and it has been held that even if a person is acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or for the reasons that the witnesses have turned hostile, will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the C.A.P.F. i.e. Central Arms Police Force.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Para-30 of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), wherein it is mentioned that-
"the employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/ acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse."
However, in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), the 3 W. P. No. 4533/ 2009 (Satya Prakash Pachauri Vs. The Director General Bharat Tibbat Seema Police & Others) provisions of Rules 17 and 22 have not been considered and when there are specific rules mandating termination in case of suppression of information at the time of filling of the verification form and thereafter entitling the authorities to terminate the services under Rule 22 by giving one months' notice, it cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse or arbitrary specially when admittedly the petitioner had not disclosed the information regarding pendency of a criminal case under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of I.P.C. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK