Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahendra Solanki vs Gnctd on 2 February, 2023
1 OA No1872/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1872/2022
Orders reserved on : 19.1.2023
Orders pronounced on : 2.2.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Mahendra Solanki, Age 21 years, Group 'C'
S/o Shri Deviram Solanki
R/o H.No.38, Vill. Imaliya
Singhpur Near Bhojpur
Post - Chandli Khedi
Distt. Raisen
Madhya Pradesh - 464990
...Applicant
(through Advocate Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ms. Gauraan)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Head Quarter, Jai Singh Road,
Central Delhi-110001.
2. Deputy Director (Admn.)
Delhi Police Academy,
Jharoda Kalan,
New Delhi-110072.
... Respondents
(through Advocate Shri Amit Yadav with Ms. Monika
Bhargava)
2 OA No1872/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
In the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order dated 7.7.2022 vide which the services of the applicant has since been terminated.
2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply and they have opposed the OA and have prayed for dismissal of the OA with cost.
3. From the pleadings on record, the undisputed facts emerge that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 1.8.2020 for recruitment to the posts of Constable (Executive) Male and Female examination 2020, the applicant applied. A case FIR being No.103/2020 under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered at Police Station Umraoganj, District Raisen (M.P.) against the applicant's father, applicant's brother and the applicant at the instance of a complaint of wife of elder brother of the applicant's father. On 6.11.2020, learned District Court, Raisen, MP ordered clear acquittal in respect of Section 294 of IPC and so far as offences under Section 323 and 505 of IPC were compromised. The said 3 OA No1872/2022 learned Court recorded that "Due to the absence of any direct and credible evidence in the case, the complainant has failed to prove beyond doubt that the incident was committed by the accused persons". On 14.7.2021, upon qualifying the relevant selection process, the applicant was provisionally selected for the said post, subject to satisfactory verification of character &antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. As required, the applicant filled the attestation form on 14.1.2022 and therein the applicant had clearly mentioned against Column No.15. (i) (e), Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against you in any police station?, that "I HAVE NEVER BEEN PROSECUTED" and against Column No.15. (ii) that "(N/A) I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY CIVIL COURT." Offer of appointment vide letter dated 24.2.2022 was issued to the applicant with direction to him to join the basic training course for the said post commencing w.e.f. 7.3.2022 to 16.3.2022 at Delhi Police Academy at Jharoda-II, Delhi. On 11.3.2022, the applicant had given an undertaking wherein he solemnly affirm that 'I have not concealed any facts in the Application Form as well as in the Attestation Form.' Pursuant to the said offer of appointment dated 4 OA No1872/2022 24.2.2022, the applicant joined the said training on 15.3.2022. However, from verification report/report from SP, Raisen (MP) vide letter No.G-21/2022 dated 28.3.2022, it was revealed that the applicant was involved in the aforesaid criminal case FIR and was acquitted by the learned Court on compromise. In view of the said facts and circumstances, particularly, concealment made by the applicant about his involvement in the said case FIR, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 7.7.2022 terminating the applicant's services with a direction to the applicant to leave the said Academy on 7.7.2022 itself. Thus, the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order of termination dated 07.07.2022;
(ii) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant forthwith in the ongoing training batch such with by all consequential benefits;
(iii) Direct the Respondents to expunge any adverse remarks regarding the alleged suppression of information from the record of the Applicant; and
(iv) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5 OA No1872/2022
5. Shri Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that when the applicant applied in respect to the aforesaid advertisement, the applicant was admittedly not involved in any criminal case. Thus, the applicant has rightly not disclosed the fact within eight weeks of filling of the application form and within approximately four weeks of registration of the said FIR, the applicant has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the said case FIR and the order of the learned Court clearly reveals that the said case FIR was a result of certain family dispute and the allegations levelled against the applicant are triable in nature and the applicant stood acquitted from the said case FIR. In the said facts and circumstances, the applicant omitted to disclose the registration of the said case FIR against him as well as while filling up the attestation form. He has also argued that in view of the fact that the allegations were only triable in nature and the applicant stood acquitted there from within around four weeks of registration of the said FIR, the applicant was not likely to extract any undue benefits by concealing the fact of his involvement in the said case FIR while filling up the application form and 6 OA No1872/2022 keeping in view the facts and circumstances that the nature of the alleged offences are triable in nature, the respondents were required to consider the suitability of the applicant for his continuation in service and they should not have terminated the services of the applicant in a mechanical manner on the sole ground of non-disclosure by the applicant about his involvement in the said case FIR while filling up the attestation form. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, and further the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
441.
6. On the other hand, Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, with the assistance of the averments made in the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently argued that it is an admitted fact that though the applicant was aware of his involvement in the said case FIR, however, he has not only concealed this material fact from the respondents but has 7 OA No1872/2022 also given an undertaking on 11.3.2022 that he has not concealed any facts in the Application Form as well as in the Attestation Form and he further declared that he has neither been involved in any criminal case nor been arrested/prosecuted/convicted/bound over/interned/externded as well as not dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case. No criminal case or court proceeding is pending against him at present. He has further argued that in view of the undertaking dated 11.3.2022 given by the applicant and concealment of his involvement in the Attestation Form clearly reflected his malafide intention. Moreover, the offer of appointment letter issued to the applicant clearly stipulated that offer of appointment is subject to verification of character & antecedents and the report receipt from the concerned authority as adverse, necessary action will be taken against him. He has further argued that under Point No. 2 (A) (i) of the Standing Order No.398/2018 (Now HRD/12/2022) of Delhi Police regarding 'Policy for deciding cases for provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police, who have disclosed their involvement in Crl. cases/acquittal/dischargeetc. or concealed the same while furnishing information in Attestation Form for the purpose 8 OA No1872/2022 of verification of 'Character & Antecedents' it is categorically provided as under:-
"In case the declaration is found false/bogus after appointment but before the individual has been confirmed, then in view of the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. UOI, Supreme Court 2016, the Disciplinary Authority may pass appropriate order for terminating the services of the individual as appointed of such a person may not be proper."
7. He has also submitted that the issue is not the offence alleged against the applicant being triable or being grave in nature but the issue is the concealment of fact by the applicant about his involvement in the said criminal case while filling up the Attestation Form and just few days prior to his joining the said training course giving undertaking contrary to the facts of his involvement in the said criminal case FIR. He has argued that the applicant having suppressed the material fact and gave a false information cannot claim a right to continue in service and the respondents being Police Department in which the applicant was appointed where trust is of paramount importance, no leniency is required to be given while dealing with the matter as in hand. He has also argued that the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 9 OA No1872/2022 in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has been considered by the respondents and the impugned order is in consonance with the relevant rules, Standing Order No.398/2018, referred to herein above and the terms of offer of appointment. He has also submitted that in the facts and circumstances, once the suitability of the applicant for his continuation in the job has already been considered by the competent authority keeping in view all material facts, relevant rules and instructions on the subject, this Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review is not called for to interfere in the impugned order only on account of sympathy and/or keeping in view the nature of offence levelled against the applicant in the said FIR. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) State of Rajasthan and others vs. Chetan Jeff, reported in AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 2274;
(ii) Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532; &
(iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v.
Ram Ratan Yadav, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437. 10 OA No1872/2022
8. In rejoinder, Shri Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) is of a Larger Bench and the same has been followed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) is binding for this Tribunal and the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Chetan Jeff (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), being the Judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, are of no help to the respondents.
9. Learned counsels for the parties have taken us to various paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments referred to and relied upon by them in support of their respective arguments. We have gone through the said judgments carefully.
10. From the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the following 11 OA No1872/2022 issues are emerged for adjudication in the present case:-
(i) Whether the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Avtar Singh (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra) or that in the cases Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v.
Ram Ratan Yadav(supra), Chetan Jeff (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) is binding and are to be followed?
(ii) Whether the OA deserves to be allowed?
11. So far as the issue regarding precedence value of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid facts and circumstances is concerned, the same is not required by us to be gone into at length, more particularly in view of the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) has gone into this aspect as well, more particularly in para 55 of the said judgment. The Hon'ble Apex Court as gone into a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court post Avtar Singh (supra), including Pawan Kumar (supra), particularly in para 58 onwards and in para 68 of Satish Chandra Yadav 12 OA No1872/2022 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has even given reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court over a period of time and Para 68 reads as under:-
"68. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles."
12. Finally in Para 69, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles of law which should be made applicable to the allegations of the present nature. Para 69 reads as under:-
"69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to 13 OA No1872/2022 inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?"14 OA No1872/2022
In Para 79 of the aforesaid Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"79. Ms. Madhavi Divan, the learned ASG has rightly relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) in which this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification Form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer."
13. In the above facts and circumstances and law as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered view 15 OA No1872/2022 that once the precedence value of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh(supra) and also in Pawan Kumar (supra) besides in other catena of cases had already been considered extensively by the Hon'ble Apex Court subsequently in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we are bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). As such the issue at para 10 (i) above is answered accordingly.
14. The facts of the case in hand, as mentioned above, make us to come to the conclusion that the issue at para 10 (ii) above deserves to be answered keeping in view what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). Accordingly, the answer to issue at para 10 (ii) above is in negative.
15. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the present OA deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Anand S. Khati) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/