Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Balmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 WA-296-2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WA-296-2021
(Rajesh Balmik Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.)
Gwalior, dated:24/03/2021
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri D.D. Bansal, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for rival parties are heard.
I.A. 3990/2021, an application for condonation of delay u/Sec.
5 of Limitation Act is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Delay of 170 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.
The instant intra-court appeal filed u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order passed by learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction u/A.226 of the Constitution assailing the dismissal of W.P. No.8545/2013 as well as R.P. No.1186/2019 wherein challenge was made to disqualification of the candidature of petitioner to be appointed as Safai Karmachari in Municipal Council, Bhind.
It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner/appellant that the petitioner had concealed the factum of pendency of criminal prosecution against him in the verification form and therefore had suppressed criminal antecedents.
The view of Apex Court as well as this Court is consistent to 2 WA-296-2021 the extent that suppression of antecedents in the character verification form is a good reason (notwithstanding criminal case having ended in acquittal subsequently or being minor in nature) for the employer to disqualify a selected candidate from being appointed.
This very issue has been answered by single bench of this court in W.P.5409/2009 (Dinesh Vs. Union of India & others) decided on 19/2/2019 after placing reliance on decision of Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and subsequent decision in case of State of M.P. & others Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar in SLP © 17404/2016 decided on 26/11/2018. Relevant portion of order dated 19/2/2019 in WP 5409/2019 is reproduced below:-
"5. The Appointing Authority found that petitioner in his character verification form suppressed the information about registration of offence and pendency of criminal prosecution against him by not providing the necessary details in Column No.12 of aforesaid prosecution. As such it is evident from the return that the real reason behind discharging of services was suppression of the fact of petitioner having been prosecuted.
6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of three Judge Bench in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, to contend that there is nothing on record to disclose as to whether mind was applied by the Competent Authority as regards suitability of petitioner for retention in service, and whether the suppression is good enough to disqualify further continuance in service.
7.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar in SLP (C) No.17404/2016 passed on 26.11.2018, whereby two Judge Bench decision of Apex Court, while dealing with earlier decision on the point including the case of Avtar Singh held thus:-
"14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to nondisclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
3 WA-296-2021
15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered intoonly after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto- rickshaw which was following the autorickshaw in which the prime accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).
17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.
18. Before we part, we must record our appreciation for the efforts put in by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus Curiae and the assistance rendered by him.''
8. This Court also had an occasion to decide similar issue holding that suppression of criminal prosecution in character antecedents form qua uniformed services, where rectitude and discipline is paramount, can be a good ground for the Competent Authority to either reject the candidature or to discontinue the services, which are not yet confirmed. The relevant extract of the said case is as under:-
"13. The most relevant and crucial factor which dissuades 4 WA-296-2021 this court from exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner is the suppression of material fact about criminal antecedent in the verification form as held supra. The act of suppression in the verification form reflects adversely on the moral fiber and character of the candidate thereby enabling the employer to oust the petitioner from competition and choose another eligible candidate, though less meritorious, but of clean image and character for induction into the police force.''
9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that looking to the nature of service, job requirement on the post of Constable and it's job profile, the act of suppression gives rise to necessary inference that the candidate has a tendency to mislead for his own advantage thereby causing dent in his moral fiber rendering him susceptible to fear and favour thereby making him unfit for disciplined service.
10. Accordingly, this Court declines interference in the matter and dismisses the present petition.
No cost. '' In view of above, it is explicit that present is a clear case of suppression of material information of registration of offence which adversely reflects upon the character of appellant thereby rendering the appellant a person of dubious and unreliable character. Moreover, the verification form at the end contains declaration which has been duly signed by appellant that if any requisite information is suppressed or is found to be incorrect then candidature/appointment shall be liable to be cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing.
In view of above, no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned single judge in dismissing the petition.
Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed, sans cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
Vpn
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2021.03.27
11:52:00 +05'30'
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'