Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 3 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.2358 OF 2014 New Delhi, this the 3rd day of July, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Ex-Driver, DTC, S/o Sh.Puranmal, B.No.26142, T.No.68145, R/o Pipal Ka Bans, Thana Sadar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) Vs. 1. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman, D.T.C., I.P.Depot, New Delhi 2. Deputy Manager (PLD), Delhi Transport Corporation, I.P.Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Zonal Manager (West), Mayapuri Depot, New Delhi, Through Chairman, D.T.C., I.P.Depot, New Delhi 4. The Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corporation, Hari Nagar Depot-1, New Delhi 64 . Respondents (By Advocate: Ms.Ruchira Gupta) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 18.4.13 whereby the services of applicant to the post of Driver was put under notice that why the service of the applicant has not been terminated at A-1 and order dated 03.06.2013 whereby the service of applicant has been terminated at A-2, order dated 21.03.2014 annexed at A-2A whereby the appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondent that applicant be reinstated back in service to the post of Driver forthwith with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay & allowance.
Or/and
(ii) Any other relief which this Honble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case are that he was appointed to the post of Driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on 28.4.2011, as per the offer of appointment dated 25.4.2011. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 18.4.2013 by the respondent-DTC to the following effect:
Sh.Satyaveer Singh S/o Sh.Puran Mal was appointed as driver with B.No.26142, PT No.68145 w.e.f. 28.4.2011 as probationer for 2 years, in accordance with the Terms & Conditions as contained in memo No.PLD-III/DSSSB/Dr./other State/3060/623 & PLD-III/ (DSSSB)/ Dr.other state/Apptt./2011/1894 dated 7.2.11 and 25.4.2011.
At the time of filling of Form No.17 column No.21 as well as CVR Column No.12 he clearly mentioned that no court case is pending against him. The same were verified from the S.H.O.Police Station Sadar Distt. Jhunnjhunoo, Rajasthan. In their communication letter issued vide Sr.No.18 dated 9.1.2012 intimating therein that he was involved in an accident case for which case was registered under Section 279/337/429 IPC, vide FIR No.144/09 dated 24.5.2009.
The above fact was not mentioned in the Form No.17 as well as CVR form while he was submitting to this office. This tantamount to concealment of fact.
You are required to explain within 72 hours on the receipt of this memo why your service should not be terminated from this Corporation under Clause 7 of the said Terms & Conditions failing which it will be assumed that nothing to say in this regard, therefore necessary action will be taken on the merit. The applicant submitted his reply on 29.4.2013, wherein he stated that no criminal case was pending against him at the time of filling in Form No.17, and that the verification report sent by the SHO, Sadar Distt.Jhunnjhunoo, was wrong. The competent authority, vide order dated 3.6.2013, terminated the services of the applicant on the ground of his concealing the involvement in criminal case, FIR No.144/09 under Sections 279, 337 and 429, dated 24.5.2009. The appeal preferred by him against the said order of termination of his services was rejected by the appellate authority, vide order dated 21.3.2014. Hence, the present O.A. was filed by him seeking the relief, as aforesaid.
3. It is contended by the applicant that the said criminal case FIR No.144/09 under Sections 279, 337 and 429 IPC, dated 24.5.2009, was finalized by the court, vide judgment dated 5.3.2010. The charge under Section 279 IPC was proved against him. The court gave him the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. At the time of filling in Form No.17, no criminal case was pending against him and hence there was no concealment on his part. As the court gave him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, he was under the impression that conviction was done away with by the court and therefore, he did not mention about the said criminal case while filling in Form No.17. His involvement in the criminal case, in which he was released under the Probation of Offenders Act could not be an impediment for his employment. The said FIR did not disclose commission of offence of moral turpitude, or lack of integrity, which could affect a young man for entry into Government service. Under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer from disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under law. The order of termination being founded on specific act of his misconduct is punitive in nature and stigmatic, and hence could not have been passed by the respondent without affording the applicant an opportunity of defending himself. His case is covered by the letter dated 10.9.2013 issued by the respondent-DTC, which states that the criminal cases where the employee was acquitted or fined for petty offence prior to his appointment in DTC may not be treated suppression of material information, or concealment of fact, and that petty offence in normal course for the post of Driver will be Section 323/34 IPC. Both the disciplinary and appellate authorities have passed the orders without application of their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleas raised by him in the reply to the show cause notice and the appeal against the order of termination. passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
4. The respondents, in their counter reply, have, inter alia, stated that the applicants service as a Driver on probation was terminated due to concealment of material facts at the time of seeking employment and filling in the requisite forms. The concealment was of a grave nature inasmuch as the applicant was involved in an accident case for which a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 279, 337 and 429 IPC. The applicant was found guilty and convicted under Section 279 IPC and was acquitted of the charge under Section 337 based on a compromise between the parties. He was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. When the applicant filled in Form No.17 on 7.2.2011, he did not disclose the said information in the form even though the same was specifically sought under column 21, i.e., Information regarding any court case registered/pending. Referring to Sections 279 and 337 IPC, the respondents have stated that the charges against the applicant were of grave and serious nature especially for the post of a Driver. As per the office circular dated 26.10.2012 bearing No.PLD-III (Misc.)/2012/3373 of DTC, DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations) 1952, instructions regarding concealment of facts by employees were re-issued. While taking note of the Standing Orders regarding recruitment as given in Clause 10 and the stipulations given in the CVR Form, directions were issued that when a person is on probation and a report of concealment/suppression of any factual information relating to his character and antecedents or any other information in the CVR/Attestation Form is received, the services of such employees are liable to be terminated after issuing a show-cause notice. As the applicant deliberately gave false information in the verification forms, he was issued the show cause notice, and after considering his reply, the competent authority passed the order of termination of his services. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected. There is no infirmity or arbitrariness in the orders passed by the competent authorities. Along with their counter reply, the respondents have filed copies of the letter of offer of appointment dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure R/2) issued to the applicant, CVR filled in by the applicant on 9.6.2011 (Annexure R/3), the letter dated 27.7.2011 issued by the respondent-DTC to the District Magistrate, District Jhum Jhunoo (Annexure R/4), and the letter dated 21.9.2011 received by the respondent-DTC from the District Magistrate, District Jhum Jhunoo (Annexure R/5).
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reply wherein he has more or less reiterated the same averments and contentions as in the O.A.
6. We have perused the records and have heard Mr.Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Ms.Ruchika Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. In support of the contentions raised by the applicant in the O.A., which have already been noted by us in paragraph 3 above, Mr.Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, during oral arguments as well as in his written note of submissions, relied on the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, the Honble High Court of Delhi, and different coordinate Benches of the Tribunal:
(i) Sandeep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, SLP No.1430 of 2007, decided on 17.3.2011. In this case, the respondent and some of his family members were involved in a criminal case, being FIR No. 362 under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, which was admittedly compromised on 18.1.1998, and the respondent and his family members were acquitted on 18.1.1998. In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999, the respondent applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on 24.2.1999, but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case. He qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). On 3.4.2001 he filled in the attestation form wherein he, for the first time, disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant, which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted. On 2.8.2001 a show-cause notice was issued asking him to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form. The respondent submitted his reply on 17.8.2001 and an additional reply, but the authorities were not satisfied with the same, and on 29.5.2003 they cancelled his candidature. The O.A. filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal, and the writ petition filed against the Tribunals order was allowed by the Honble High Court of Delhi. Hence, the Civil Appeal was filed before the Honble Supreme Court. Dismissing the Civil Appeal, the Honble Supreme Court held thus:
When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life.
The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :-
"I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere - that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards - of the poets and the singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed."
[ Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 ] In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.
At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
(ii) Chandra Prakash Sahi v. State of U.P. (decided on 25.4.2000), wherein the appellant was recruited on 1.10.1985 as a Constable in 34th Battalion, Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, U.P. He completed his training on 6.9.1986 and was thereafter placed on probation for aperiod of two years. He completed his period of probation on 5.9.1988, but a year later, on 19.7.1989 his services were terminated by a simple notice in terms of Rule 3 of the UP Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The allegation which was proved against him was that on 24.6.1989 while camping at Ghat Varanasi for Flood Relief Training, a quarrel had taken place between two Constables and he was involved in the said quarrel. The U.P.Public Services Tribunal set aside the order of termination of his service. The Honble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. On the findings that there was total non-compliance with the provisions of Para 541 of the U.P.Police Regulations and services of the appellant were terminated without ever issuing him any notice intimating the grounds on which his services were proposed to be terminated nor was his explanation ever obtained, the Honble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Honble High Court and restoring that of the Tribunal.
(iii) Constable Sandeep v. GNCTD and another, OA No. 2137 of 2009, decided on 31.1.2011, wherein the applicant joined as a Constable in Delhi Police on 25.5.2008. His family was having some family dispute with his maternal uncle who was also living in the neighborhood of the applicant. On 14.3.2008, there was a quarrel between the members of the two families whereupon FIR No.53/2008 under Sections 323, 324, 452/34 IPC was registered implicating the applicant along with his family members. The applicants family too registered cross-FIR No.91/2008 under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC on 24.5.2008. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail on 18.3.2008. He duly informed this incident as well as lodging of FIR to the Principal, PTS, Wazirabad, Delhi; the DCP, North East, Seelampur, Delhi; and the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, New Delhi. The respondent-Department issued show cause notice dated 21.11.2008 calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 for not disclosing his involvement in a criminal case in the undertaking given by him at the time of his appointment. After considering the applicants reply, the respondent-Department issued order under the said Rule 5(1) terminating his services with immediate effect. On the findings that the applicants services were terminated with immediate effect under Rule 5(1) of the Central Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without notice in terms of Rule 5(1) or without giving him pay and allowances in lieu of the said notice, the Tribunal held that the order of termination of service of the applicant was ex facie contrary to the provisions of the said Rules and as such unsustainable and accordingly quashed the same. However, the Tribunal gave liberty to the respondents to proceed against the applicant, if they so desire, after following due process as per the applicable rules.
(iv) Government of NCT of Delhi and another v. Robin Singh, W.P. ( C ) No. 2068 of 2010, decided on 25.8.2010, the respondent was selected for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) and was intimated of his provisional selection with a rider that the same was subject to his being declared medically fit and his character and antecedents verified, for which he was required to fill up and submit an attestation form. In the attestation form, vide column no.13(1), (b) and (c), filled up by him, the applicant gave information in the negative. On 8.7.2008 the respondent himself informed the petitioners that on a private complaint filed by a complainant before the Magistrate pertaining to the offence punishable under Sections 323/504/506 IPC, he was acquitted on 9.6.2008. Taking on record the said information and contrasting it with the information provided by the respondent against column no. 13 ibid, and charging him with acting deceitfully and with mala fide intention in not furnishing the relevant information, a show cause notice dated 30.7.2008 was issued by the petitioners calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled. The respondent, inter alia, stated in his reply that there was no concealment on his part while filling up the application form on 10.11.2007 as at that time he was not aware about any complaint lodged against him and that he learnt about the same only on 8.1.2008. He was never arrested and voluntarily surrendered before the court after learning about the complaint against. Thus, he had not furnished any wrong information in the attestation form. The petitioner-Department without considering the respondents reply in proper perspective, cancelled the candidature of the applicant. The applicant-respondents O.A. challenging cancellation of his candidature was allowed by the Tribunal. The petitioner-Department filed the writ petition challenging the Tribunals order. The Honble High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunals order.
(v) Naveen Kumar Mandiwal v. The Commissioner of Police and others, OA No.728 of 2011, decided on 3.8.2011, the applicant joined as a Constable on temporary basis. His services were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on the ground of non-disclosure of his having been involved in a criminal case FIR No.54/2007, dated 13.4.2007 under Sections 143/341/323 IPC. The applicant was acquitted of the charges on a compromise being effected between the parties on 20.7.2009. He filled up his application form for the post of Constable on 23.3.2009. Against column 15 pertaining to criminal proceeding details in sub-columns (a) & (b) regarding registration of any FIR or criminal cases and their pendency, a reply in the negative had been furnished. Subsequently, while filling up the Attestation Form on 2.10.2009 in column 11 pertaining to the applicant having been ever involved in any criminal prosecution or having been arrested and filing of any FIR and any pending prosecution in a court, descriptive statement negating all of them had been furnished. On 1.1.2010, an undertaking was furnished once again, inter alia, declaring about the applicant never having been involved in any criminal case or having been prosecuted. In course of the character and antecedents verification by the respondents, a report dated 25.6.2010 was received from the Additional District Magistrate, Sikkar, Rajasthan, mentioning about the antecedent of the previous criminal involvement of the applicant as per the aforesaid FIR. Alleging that concealment of facts regarding involvement in a criminal case at the initial stage reflected mala fide intention, the respondents issued a show cause notice under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS)Rules, 1965. After considering his reply, the respondents terminated his service under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that termination of services of the services of the applicant under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS)Rules, 1965, after issuance of the show cause notice was not in consonance with law and accordingly quashed the order of termination, with direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service. The Honble High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Department and upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The Honble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP filed against both the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi and the order of the Tribunal.
(vi) Const.Vijay Pal Yadav v. Govt. of NCTD, OA No.3518 of 2010, decided on 4.8.2011, the applicant was selected as a Constable in Delhi Police and joined the Department on 4.1.2010. His services were terminated by the respondent-Department under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, after issuing a show cause notice, on the ground of non-disclosure of his having been involved in a criminal case. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, following its earlier decision in OA No.2313/2009, allowed the O.A. and set aside the termination order. The Honble High Court of Delhi upheld the Tribunals order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department.
(vii) Ramvir, No.22713/PTC v. The Govt. of NCTD and others, OA No.2400 of 2011, decided on 21.12.2011, the services of the applicant were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS)Rules, 1965 because he did not reveal his involvement in criminal case FIR No.156 dated 21.7.2006 under Sections 147/149/323/506 IPC, PS Badra, District Bhiwani, Haryana, in his application form and attestation form. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra) and the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & another, WP (C ) No. 8223 of 2011, decided on 22.11.2011, quashed the order of termination of services of the applicant and remitted the matter to the appropriate authority to decide the same in the light of the observations made by the Honble High Court in para 7 of the judgment in Rajesh Kumars case (supra). In the writ petition filed against the Tribunals order, the Honble High Court, while upholding the Tribunals order setting aside the order of termination, set aside the direction of the Tribunal to the Department to reinstate the applicant in service pending reconsideration of the matter by the competent authority.
8. Per contra, Ms.Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and others, (2010)14 SCC 103, to contend that there is no illegality in the order passed by the competent authority terminating the services of the applicant.
8.1 In Daya Shankar Yadavs case (supra), the appellant was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 12.6.2003. Rule 14(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 required every newly recruited employee to furnish factual information about himself. In view of it, the appellant was required to fill up and sign a verification roll (for short the form) which he did on 6.7.2004. The form, inter alia, contained the warning that if the fact that the false has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the verification roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. Queries 12(a) and (b) in the form relating to the antecedents of the employee were as follows:
12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/restricted by any university or any other education authority/institution?
(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this verification roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is yes then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment, etc. and state about the case pending with the court/university/education authority at the time of filling in this form. The appellant answered both these questions in the negative by writing nahin(i.e. no). The form was filled in Hindi, a language understood by the appellant. The said form was referred to the police for verification, who reported that Crime Case No.67 of 1997 had been registered against the appellant in Police Station, Bahariya, for offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and that the court had however discharged him on 17.01.2001, after trial. After considering the appellants reply to the show cause notice, the competent authority terminated his services. The departmental appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The Honble Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Following the principles laid down in its earlier decisions in Delhi Admn. V. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437; R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, (2008) 1 SCC 660; Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314; Department of Home, A.P. v. B.Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746; and State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222, the Honble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment, held thus:
15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to any of the following consequences:
(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarants fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were fale, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him,if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of thecharges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.
16. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from college, etc.; and (ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post. The Honble Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held, in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgments, as follows:
23. The fact that a criminal case was registered against the appellant is not disputed. The fact that no criminal case was pending against him, when he gave the verification declaration in the year 2004, or the fact that he was not convicted or fined or bound down in any case, loses relevance, when he clearly suppressed the material fact that he was prosecuted and thereby made a false statement. Though the English version of the questions could have used a little more clarity, we cannot agree with the contention that he was mislead into answering the question wrongly, as the Hindi version of the questions which were answered by the applicant did not suffer from any vagueness or ambiguity.
24. We are satisfied that the appellant had knowingly made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case. Therefore, the employer (CRPF) was justified in dispensing with his services for not being truthful in giving material information regarding his antecedents which were relevant for employment in a uniformed service, and that itself justified his discharge from service. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal as having no merit. 8.2 In Lal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, W.P. (C) No.3368 of 2015, decided by the Honble High Court of Delhi on 8.4.2015, the petitioner had applied to seek an appointment as a Driver in the Delhi Transport Corporation. The selection process was conducted by the DSSSB. On being declared successful, he was offered appointment to the post. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined the service. It was stipulated that the petitioner was required to declare the information as prescribed in From No.17 and in case of negative character verification report, his services were liable to be terminated without any notice. In clause 13 of the said letter it was further stipulated that in case any information given by him was found incorrect, his services would be liable to be discharged from the threshold and he would not be given any service benefit for the period, as the initial eligibility/requirement would be considered not satisfied. In the application form he had concealed the material information of pendency of a criminal case against him, which was registered against him vide FIR No.13 dated 20.1.2012 under Section 323/325/34 IPC at Police Station, Gurgaon. On account of furnishing false information in column 12 of the verification form by the petitioner, the Delhi Transport Corporation terminated his services under Regulation 9(a)(i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Services)Regulations, 1952. The O.A. filed against the order of termination of his services having been dismissed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Honble High Court of Delhi. The Honble High Court, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the Tribunals order, observed and held, in paragraphs 9 to 15 of the judgment, as follows:
9. The Honble Allahabad High Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 33296 of 2009, Veer Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 12.2.2015 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jainender Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748, in which the Court was pleased to lay down the following broad propositions:
"29. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two Judges and having bestowed out serious 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 option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent 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.
29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if finds it 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 estoppels against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information 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 regarding involvement in any criminal case or deletion or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement 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, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity, as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility 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 acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable."
On the basis of the above law declared and laid down authoritatively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Honble Allahabad High Court held as follows: This Court is of the opinion that the cancellation of appointment/selection on account of suppression of material fact or deliberate misstatement is liable to be seriously viewed. A deliberate concealment or omission of vital information cannot clothe the selectee with equitable considerations. A deliberate misstatement or omission of vital information made knowingly cannot fault the decision taken by the appointing Authority to annul the selection/appointment. The suppression of material information clearly speaks about the character and the moral fibre of the selectee. Suppression of pendency of a criminal case, if it be a deliberate omission, would clearly justify the action of the employer in cancelling the selection. This aspect assumes additional importance in case the selectee/appointee is seeking entry to a uniformed and disciplined force. A member of a disciplined force is liable to be judged on a higher pedestal. Viewed in light of the above this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No. 3 was clearly justified in passing the impugned order."
10. In the present case, the learned Tribunal too placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jainendra Singhs case (supra) and took a view that the candidate having suppressed the material information and/or having given any false information, cannot claim right of continuance in service and the employer having regard to the nature of the employment, as well as other aspects has the discretion to terminate his services.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal is correct in observing that a person, who can be dishonest in disclosing the material information at the time of his employment, cannot be expected to be fair while plying public vehicles on roads. Any person who is seeking public employment has to truthfully disclose all the particulars as are required to be filled in the application form. It is not the case of the petitioner that on the date of his filling the application form, the said criminal case was not registered against him. His later acquittal in the said criminal case is hardly of any consequence as in the facts at hand, we are concerned with his initial suppression and non-disclosure of the pendency of a criminal case against him. The relevant column, which has been reproduced in the application form fully cautioned the petitioner that any wrong information will lead to termination of his services.
12. A person to be recruited to government service must be worthy of confidence and trust and should be a person of utmost righteousness and impeccable integrity. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the Government service ought not to enter it. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 385 where the Honble Supreme Court laid strong emphasis on recruiting persons of impeccable character and integrity in the Delhi Police and said that persons having criminal antecedents were misfit for appointment in the police. Relevant para of this judgment is also reproduced as under:- The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.
13. The same view was taken in another recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P and Ors. V. Parvez Khan, in Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014, decided on 1.12.2014 , wherein it was held:
From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. No doubt the Screening Committee has not been constituted in the case considered by this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent, in the present case, the Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter. The Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no allegation of mala fides against the person taking the said decision nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational.
14. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, the Supreme Court examined a case where the appointment was refused on the post of Police Constable and it observed as under: It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service. (Emphasis added)
15. The rationale behind seeking information relating to criminal antecedents is not to find out the gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is required with a view to judge the character 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 (Ref: Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttranchal & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 363).
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the rival contentions of the parties. In the instant case, the respondent-DTC issued letter dated 7.2.2011 ibid offering an appointment to the applicant in the post of Driver on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Condition Nos.7 and 13 incorporated in the letter dated 7.2.2011 ibid were as follows:
7. He is required to declare information as prescribed in Form No.17. In case of negative character verification report, his services will be terminated without any notice.
xx xx
13. In case of finding any information given by him incorrect at any stage, his services are liable to be discharged from the threshold. Thus, he would not be given any service benefit for the period as the initial eligibility/requirement would not stand satisfied. It is an admitted case between the parties that criminal case FIR No.144/09 under Sections 279, 337 and 429 IPC had been filed against the applicant. Section 279 IPC relates to the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way, and Section 337 IPC relates to the offence of causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. The applicant had been acquitted of the charge under Section 337 IPC due to compromise. The trial court had found him guilty and convicted him under Section 279 I.P.C., but released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, vide judgment dated 5.3.2010. In the Form 17 and CVR form filled in by the applicant on 8.6.2011, as against column 21 of the Form 17, and column no.12 of the CVR, where information regarding any court case registered/pending against him, etc., was sought, the applicant answered in the negative. Thus, it is clear that the applicant had knowingly made a false statement and/or suppressed the material fact while filling in Form 17 and CVR form. The fact that the said criminal case was not pending against him on the date of his filling in Form 17 and CVR form, or the fact that he had been released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, loses relevance, when he clearly suppressed the material fact that he had been prosecuted and thereby made a false statement. The terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment, dated 7.2.2011 ibid, being binding on the applicant, there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the order passed by the competent authority terminating the services of the applicant on account of his making false statement and/or suppressing material fact in Form 17 and CVR form. Both the competent authority and the appellate authority in their orders dated 3.6.2013 dated 21.3.2014 have concisely stated the facts and circumstances of the case, and have arrived at their conclusion on the basis of the materials available on record. Therefore, the orders passed by the said authorities cannot be said to be non-speaking and unreasoned orders. As regards the letter dated 10.9.2013 ibid relied on by the applicant in support of his case, we find that the same is of no help to his case inasmuch as the applicant had been prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 279,337 and 429 IPC, and he had been found guilty and convicted of the charge under Section 279 IPC, and had been acquitted of the charge under Section 337 IPC due to compromise. In view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadavs case (supra), and the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Lal Singhs case (supra), which are squarely applicable to the present case, we find no merit in the O.A. which is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBMER AN