Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Alok Kumar Chaturvedi vs State (Rural Develp & Panchayati) Ors on 16 March, 2018
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 5602/2018
Alok Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Ram Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o House No. 18, Raghunathpuri, Sainik Marg,
Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Commissioner Joint Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms
Department (Group-3), Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. Joint Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department
(Group-3), Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Section Officer, Administrative Reforms Department
(Group-3), Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
7. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
8. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Police Paramarsh
Sahayta Kendra, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Giri Raj Rajoria
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
16/03/2018
(2 of 5) [CW-5602/2018]
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands
resolved in view of the adjudication by the Apex Court of the land
in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: AIR 2016 SC 3598.
It is further contended that relying upon the opinion in the
case of Avtar Singh (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court is
allowed SBCWP No. 5238/1996 (Constable Shri Ram Meel Vs.
Govt. of India & Ors.) vide order dated 20 th November, 2017,
observing thus:
"The Court further finds that the Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) has culled out the
principles in respect of information, which are required to be
given by a candidates while submitting their verification forms.
The Supreme Court has laid down the following principles and
para 30 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"30. 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:
(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.
(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.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the
Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(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 recourse
appropriate to the case may be adopted: -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a
(3 of 5) [CW-5602/2018]
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.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
(c) 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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
(4 of 5) [CW-5602/2018]
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.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him." The case law cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents in the case of The General Court Martial & Ors.
Vs. Col. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal (supra) is in respect of the
Court Martial findings which are recorded by the authorities
and since the High Court had interfered in the proceedings,
the Supreme Court said that the findings of Court Martial
Authorities are required to be upheld. In the instant case,
the issue is with regard to giving false information in respect
of column no.
12 in enrollment form and whether petitioner has committed
any offence under Section 23 of the BSF Act, 1968. The
other case relied upon by the counsel for the respondents of
Delhi High Court in the case of Ex. Sep. Ranjeet Kumar Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra) reiterated the principles with
respect to Summary Court Martial. The learned counsel has
relied on para 33 of the judgment which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"32. The Tribunal has considered the testimonies of the
various witnesses recorded before the SCM and has
carefully analyzed the evidence and reached the conclusive
finding that ample and adequate opportunity was given to
the petitioner to put across his defense and that in spite of
it the petitioner did not make any statement during the
summary of evidence. In the circumstances, there is no
justification for this Court to substitute the findings of the
Summary Court Martial and the Tribunal with its own
finding as the petitioner has failed to show that the
findings are based on no evidence or are so absurd that no
reasonable person could reach the same. In the facts and
circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal dismissing the original application of
the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, in the facts
and circumstances, without any merit and it is dismissed."
The Court finds that in that case, the Tribunal while recording
the finding has gone into the question as to whether the alleged
misconduct was committed by the person of not. The entire
evidence which was discussed in the Court Martial Proceedings,
found that the charge against the person, was proved and as
such, the Delhi High Court gave its judgment by observing that
Court Martial Proceedings are conducted by the authorities by
following the procedure, which is prescribed under the
(5 of 5) [CW-5602/2018]
particular Act. The said judgment is also of little help to
counsel for the respondents.
This Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) has also followed the case of Avtar Singh and had reiterated the position that person who fills the verification form, has to disclose the specific information which is sought and every word contained in such verification form has a different meaning and it is required to be understood in the same manner by a candidate. In the opinion of the Court, the order passed by the respondents suffers from legal infirmity and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19th April, 1995 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in duty. The said exercise may be carried out within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of this order."
It is further urged that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order in the case of Constable Shri Ram Meel (supra).
Ordered accordingly.
In case, the controversy raised in the instant writ application is found covered by adjudication as aforesaid; the petitioner be accorded same relief.
In case, the claim is not found covered by the adjudication, the respondents may make a reasoned and speaking order.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J SS/67