Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.408 - HR of 2010
(Reserved on :25.2.2011)
Chandigarh, this the Ist day of March, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER(A)
Naseeb Singh Ahlawat son of Shri Mohinder Singh, village & Post Office Kharkara, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak (Haryana)
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home New Delhi.
2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Operation and Training-cum-Chairman Selection Board, Chandigarh.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE:
SHRI DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI For Respondent No.1
SHRI ARVIND MOUDGIL For Respondents 2 & 3
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
The applicant herein has been denied appointment as a member of the constabulary in the Union Territory of Chandigarh in view of the fact that he had furnished wrong information in the Attestation Form.
2. One of the relevant columns (Column No.11) in the Attestation Form required the candidate to indicate whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case anywhere in India and if so, to give its detail; while, the other column (Column No.12) required the furnishing of information about whether the applicant had ever been convicted or acquitted by Court of any offence. Against the former column, the applicant recorded No; while, against the latter, he recorded N.A. (Not Applicable).
3. In the course of character verification, however, it came to the notice of the competent authority that the applicant had been prosecuted in Case FIR No.233 dated 6.9.2007, registered under Section 323/ 506 of the IPC at P.S.Meham, Haryana, though the case had, otherwise, ended in acquittal on 30.9.2007 by the Court of SDJM, Meham. In the context of that information, the applicant filed an application dated 26.12.2008 vide which he informed the competent authority that case FIR No.233, dated 6.9.2007 U/S 323/506/34 IPC, PS Meham was not registered against him, but the same was registered against some other person whose name & fathers name is identical to him.
4. That information was forwarded by the SSP U.T. Chandigarh to his counterpart i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The SHO, PS Meham, within whose jurisdiction the village of the applicant is situated. furnished the following report:-
In regard to verification of Naseeb Singh s/o Sh.Mahender Singh caste Jat R/o Kharkara verification was done by ASI Randhir Singh as per his report particulars in attestation given by applicant are true. I am satisfied with both of two reports. I verified that now there is no case registered against Naseeb Singh.
5. The applicant based his claim on the report aforementioned. The competent authority, however, was not convinced. That is what impelled the applicant to file this O.A.
6. The respondents asserted the validity of the approach by averring that a person who furnishes wrong information is not fit to be a member of the disciplined force.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. In the course of the presentation, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the information furnished by the applicant in the Attestation Form was appropriate inasmuch as he had already been acquitted by the time the form aforementioned came to be filled up. In support of the averment that a candidate facing such an eventuality could be appointed to the public service, the learned counsel relied upon the the decision in the case of RAMNIK KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA , (P&H, DB) : 2008(4) SCT 657.
9. The plea aforementioned was resisted on behalf of the respondents who relied upon judgment dated 14.3.2008, rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.5908-CAT of 2003, titled UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH & the connected cases and also judgment dated 15.11.2010, rendered by this Bench (of the Central Administrative Tribunal) vide which O.A. No.551-PB of 2009, titled KARAMJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, disposed of by a common order in O.A. No.635-PB of 2010, titled DILRAJ SINGH BAJWA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER.
10. We are not impressed with the view advocated on behalf of the applicant. The reasons therefor are as under.
11. It was evident from a perusal of the above-quoted columns that the former column (Column 11) of the Attestation Form required a candidate to indicate whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case anywhere in India or not ; while, the other column (Column 12) required the candidate to indicate whether he had ever been convicted or acquitted by court of any offence. The former column ordained a candidate to indicate whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. The fate of the prosecution was irrelevant to the poser. The other column called upon a candidate to indicate whether he had been convicted or acquitted by court of any offence.
12. A conjunctive perusal of both the columns aforementioned would convince that a candidate could not afford to conceal having been prosecuted (though acquitted). If a candidate, desirous of joining public service, withholds such like information from the appointing authority, he just would not deserve to be allowed access to public service, particularly when the aspiration is to join a force charged with the responsibility of maintenance of law and order.
13. The reliance placed by the applicant on the decisions aforementioned is misconceived. In the case of Ramnik Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra), a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court was of the categorical view that once the involvement of a candidate in criminal proceedings was established, the effect thereof would be that induction of the person concerned in the police force has to be left to be examined by the competent authority. That was a case in which Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPRs), as applicable to the State of Haryana, as amended by notification dated 18.6.2002, provided that a candidate who had been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, shall not be considered for appointment as a Constable. D.G.P. Haryana issued instructions dated 2.7.2007 whereby it was observed that Candidates who were involved in criminal cases and stand acquitted at the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as constable even if they had not disclosed the facts of their facing trial or acquittal in column No.12 of the application form. But those candidates who have faced charges of moral turpitude during their trial but got acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving of benefit of doubt may not be considered for appointment as Constable. The applicant therein succeeded on the basis of the instructions aforementioned. There is nothing of that type available in this case.
14. In our order dated 15th November, 2010, passed in OA No.551-PB of 2009 (to which both of us were a party) we also took a similar view. The relevant portion of the view taken by us is extracted hereunder:-
34. On the basis of the discussion in the preceding paras, we feel justified in culling out a well-considered opinion that, in the absence of there being any averment qua want of bonafides or the decision making process being based upon irrelevant and inadmissible consideration (expressional extraction from the Division Bench judgment dated 29.3.2008), we have to give it to the competent authority to decide upon the suitability or otherwise of an aspiring candidate for appointment to a disciplined segment of the public service. We, in respectful accord with the view obtained by the Division Bench, hold that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not entitle a candidate to press a claim for appointment. Any view to the contrary would facilitate subversion of the competence and moral conscientiousness required for an appointment of that category. It would be particularly so if the candidate is aspiring to be a part of a Force charged with the responsibility of maintenance of law and order in a Society which, by virtue of it being a part of democratic and secular polity, consists of people of all hues, economic and otherwise. These observations shall apply with equal vigour to an appointment to the Intelligence Agencies as well. Even otherwise, we would like to pointedly notice that our view in the above case was based upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. SUSHIL KUMAR : (1996) 11 SCC 605 which was quoted, with approval, in a later three-judges Bench judgment in UNION OF INDIA VS. KALI DASS BATISH & ANOTHER : (2006) 1 SCC 799 and also in a subsequent judgment reported as R.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS : (2008) 1 SCC 660 to uphold the view denying appointment.
15. The presents, thus, is a case wherein the applicant had not only furnished incorrect information against the relevant columns, he has compounded the infraction by raising a plea that it was not he but a name sake of his (and with the same parentage) who had been prosecuted in a case that transpired in the course of character verification. That plea has not at all been substantiated. The refrain on the part of the applicant in offering the factually correct response against the relevant columns of the Attestation Form and his taking an altogether baseless plea qua his name sake having been prosecuted in the case indicated by the character verification agency shows him to be an individual with depleted integrity and a perverted mind-set who is not fit to be appointed to a disciplined force.
16. In that view of things, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to find force in the plea raised on behalf of the applicant. The O.A. shall stand dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to the costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHI RAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: March 1st , 2011 `bss 1 (OA No. 408-HR/2010)