Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Ex. Constable Karam Veer Singh on 27 August, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No. 1245 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1245 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.08.2012
Union of India and others ..... Appellants
Versus
Ex. Constable Karam Veer Singh ..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, Additional Central Government
Counsel for Union of India,
for the appellants.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
CM No.3321 of 2012 This is an application for condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1245 of 2012
The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 allowing the writ petition and directing reinstatement of the petitioner to service with all consequential benefits by quashing the impugned orders dated 22.11.2008 and 28.07.2010 by which he was dismissed from service for making false declaration to secure employment with respect to a criminal case.
The brief facts necessary for decision of this appeal lie in a narrow compus. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable/Radio LPA No. 1245 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Operator in IndoTibetan Border Police against an advertisement issued in April 2007. The petitioner was selected and appointed to service. It transpired that the petitioner's neighbour had lodged an FIR No.10 dated 19.01.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 24 IPC in Police Station, Khol District Rewari. At the time of seeking appointment, the respondent had filled up the Character and Antecedents Verification Roll on 02.08.2007 recording that there was no criminal proceedings pending against him. That entry was made by the respondent in his hand on 02.08.2007 though the FIR was registered against the petitioner but no challan was presented against him till then as he was found innocent during investigation by the police. Since he was found innocent obviously no criminal proceedings were pending against him. It was later that the complainant, the said neighbour of the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the petitioner-respondent was summoned by the trial court on 08.10.2007 for appearance before the Court on 18.10.2007. He accordingly appeared and was enlarged on bail on the same day. The criminal case ended in a compromise as the offences were compoundable and respondent was duly acquitted on 07.06.2008. As a result of the above sequence of events, the petitioner-respondent was dismissed from service for filing false declaration in the Verification Note. The statutory appeal against the order of dismissal failed. This led the petitioner to institute the writ petition challenging those orders which have been quashed by the learned Single Judge.
We have heard Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, learned Additional Central Government Counsel on behalf of the appellant Union of India but LPA No. 1245 of 2012 (O&M) -3- do not feel persuaded by her to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge on the short ground that on the date of filling in the declaration form on 02.08.2007 there was nothing against the writ petitioner-respondent by way of criminal proceedings. She could not controvert that he was roped in later on, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. She produced before us the Form of Enrolment signed by the respondent at place 'Shivpuri' on '2/8/07'. Therefore, the administrative reason assigned for dismissal from service of filing false declaration was patently incorrect an untenable as is apparent on the face of record. When the petitioner-respondent penned down self disclosure information against Column 12 (a) and (b) he was not wrong to respond with the word "No" to arrest, prosecution, detention, imprisonment or conviction. Inasmuch as he had never been arrested for any offence nor had been tried or confined in custody or released on bail or had been fined by any Court or had sustained any of the disqualifications mentioned in the proforma on the date of declaration on 2.8.2007. The petitioner had been seriously wronged by passing both the perverse orders without due application of mind. The learned Single Judge was correct in allowing the writ petition and we see no reason whatsoever to interfere in the matter and consequently dismiss the appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
27.08.2012
manju