Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Robin Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 September, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2367/2008 New Delhi, this the 8th day of September, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman(J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Robin Singh (Roll No.40796) S/o Sh. Dharmpal Singh R/o VPO : Mulhera, Distt. Meerut (UP). .. Applicant. (By Advocate : Sh. Anil Singal) versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police 4th Bn. DAP, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate : Mrs. Sumedha Sharma) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri Robin Singh, the Applicant herein, has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has sought for the following reliefs:
(A) To call for the records for the case and quash and set aside the impugned order as mentioned in Para 1 of the OA and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay particularly when the applicant is not able to get job despite his best efforts.
To award costs in favor of the applicant and To pass any order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.
2. The Applicant applied for the post of Constable in Delhi Police for which recruitment was held in the year 2007. After qualifying the physical, medical and written examination, the applicant was selected for the said post. On 30.07.2008 (Annexure A/1), a Show cause notice was issued to the Applicant by Dy. Commissioner of Police, thereby informing him as to why his candidature should not be cancelled due to concealment of facts, the same reads as under :-
You, candidate Robin Singh s/o Sh. Dharampal Singh have applied for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment conducted by Delhi Police in the year 2007 and selected provisionally, subject to verification of your character & antecedents and medically fitness.
On receipt of your character & antecedents report from the authority concerned, it reveals that you were involved in a case of non cognizable report No.18/2006, dated 25.10.2006 u/s 323/504/506 IPC, PS Dardhana, Distt. Meerut (UP). Lateron, the above said case was decided by the Honble Court vide its order dated 09.06.2008 and you were acquitted of the charge.
On scrutiny of Application Form & Attestation Form filled up by you on 10.11.2007 and 28.03.2008 respectively, it has been found that you did not disclose the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant columns of Application Form & Attestation Form and concealed the facts deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of these forms that furnishing of any false information will be treated as disqualification. Thus you have concealed the facts of your involvement in the above-said criminal case in the relevant columns of Application Form & Attestation Form and tried to seek appointment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means and malafide intention.
You candidate Robin Singh, Roll No.410796 are, therefore, called upon to Show Cause as to why your candidature for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. Your reply, if any, should reach this office within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defense and the case will be decided ex-parte on its merit.
3. In response to the above Show cause notice, Applicant submitted his reply on 7.8.2008 thereby contending that he came to know about the NCR No.18/08 dt. 25.10.2006 only on 8.1.2008. Contention of the Applicant is that since he was never arrested so there was no concealment of facts. He filled up the Application Form for the post of Constable in Delhi Police on 10.11.2007 and the charges were framed against him by the Court only on 6.6.2008. According to the Applicant as on 28.03.2008 when the applicant filled up Attestation Form, there was no FIR in existence against the Applicant, neither he was arrested by the Police nor any charge sheet had been filed against the Applicant U/S 173CrPC. But the Applicant voluntarily informed the Department about the NCR vide Written Application submitted in the office of 4th Bn. DAP vide Diary No.1649 dt. 8.7.2008. On 7.8.2008 (Annexure A/3), the Applicant submitted his reply to the Show cause notice. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent No.2 illegally and arbitrarily rejected the reply/representation of the Applicant vide order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure A/2) and cancelled the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable, which reads as follows :-
..Accordingly, your case was examined and you were issued a show cause notice vide this office memo No.13770/R. Cell (SI Recruitment) (DA-II/4th Bn. DAP dated 30.07.2008. In response to Show cause notice you have submitted your reply on 07.08.2008 which has been considered in detail along with relevant record available on file. The pleas put forth by you in your reply have been found not convincing because of the reasons you have concealed the facts of your involvement in a criminal case in the relevant columns of the Application Form & Attestation Form deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of these forms that furnishing of any false information will be treated as disqualification and tried to seek appointment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means, which amounts to grave misconduct on your part. As regards discharged name in the criminal case or sending intimation at later stage for not knowing the facts of the case, the same has nothing to do with the matter. The question is that you had concealed the facts of your involvement deliberately in the relevant columns of both the forms which clearly reflect your malafide intention. As such, you have found not suitable for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your candidature for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) Male is Delhi Police is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
4. We heard Shri Anil Singal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Sumedha Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the pleadings.
5. Shri Anil Singal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant very comprehensively placed before us the facts of the case to bring home the argument that (i) there was no concealment of the details of the case No.18/2006 at the application stage since the Applicant was not aware of the FIR; (ii) since there was no charge sheet against him and he was not arrested in the said case, the Applicant indicated No in the concerned columns in the Attestation Form; (iii) the Applicant was neither arrested by Police nor he surrendered to the Police in the said case ; and (iv) the Applicant having been finally selected for the post, it was his duty to report to the concerned authorities about his honourable acquittal in the said case which he did voluntarily vide his letter dated 8.7.2008. It was contended by Shri Singal that, only after the Applicants letter dated 8.7.2008, he was issued a Show cause notice dated 30.7.2008. He submitted that had the Applicant been interested to conceal the case, he would not have voluntarily furnished the facts of the case in his letter dated 8.7.2008. He highlighted that a similar case was decided first by Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court and later on by Honble Supreme Court and laid his reliance on both judgments. He took us through the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others versus Dinesh Kumar [AIR 2008 SC 1083] in support of his contentions. On behalf of the Applicants case, he also relied on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in (i) Commissioner of Police versus Dhaval Singh [1999 (1) SCC 246]; (ii) T. S. Vasudevan Nair versus Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [1998 Supp SCC 795]; (iii) State of M. P. Versus Ramashankar Raghuvanshi [1983 SCC (L&S) 263] and (iv) Municipal Committee, Jaita versus Gulab Singh[2003 (3) SCT 1011]. He also relied on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sandeep Kumar Versus Commissioner of Police [2006 (7) ADC (Del) 423]. As part of the OA, the copy of the order of this Tribunal in OA No.919/2007 decided on 26.10.2007 has been enclosed in support of the Applicants case.
6. On behalf of the Respondents, Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, the learned Counsel contended that though the Applicant was acquitted, his involvement in the Non Cognizable Report No.18/2006 in the P.S. Sardhana was not furnished by him in the Application Form dated 10.11.2007 and Attestation Form dated 28.3.2008. This, she terms, is a clear case of concealment. She submitted that the Applicant clearly mentioned No in the Column No.15 of the Application Form as well as the Column No.13(a) & (b) of the Attestation Form, and the Applicant being a Graduate would not claim to be a layman to understand the queries in those columns. Her contention was that the Applicant by his own admission in his reply to the Show cause notice was granted bail on 12.1.2008 in the concerned Court, would mean that he was arrested informally and consequently granted bail on the same day by the Court. Reliance was laid on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others versus Ram Rattan Yadav [JT 2002 (2) SC 256] to state that if any employee conceals the facts in the application form, he has no claim to remain in the Government job. Referring to judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Sandeep Kumars case (supra), it was stated that the Delhi Police had filed SLP in Honble Supreme Court.
7. Having heard the rival contentions, it is appropriate for us to compile the events in a chronological manner for just determination of the issue whether Applicant can be held responsible for non furnishing of information about his involvement in the case No.18/2006 and the undisputedly admitted events are as follows :-
1. 25.10.2006 Applicants involvement in a case relating to the FIR No.18/2006 u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC in PS, Sardhana, Meerut (UP).
2. 10.11.2007 The Applicant filled up his Application Form No.135175 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive)-Male in Delhi Police.
3. 8.1.2008 The Applicant came to know of the case No.18/2006 when he appeared and granted bail in the District Magistrate Court, Meerut.
4. 28.3.2008 Having been selected for the post, the Applicant filled up the Attestation Form.
5. 6.6.2008 Charges were framed against the Applicant by the DM Court in the case No.18/2006.
6. 09.06.2008 Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case (FIR No.18/06) by the District Magistrate Meerut.
7. 8.07.2008 The Applicant submitted voluntarily about the FIR No.18/2006 and his acquittal through a written application.
8. 30.07.2008 A Show Cause notice was issued to the Applicant proposing the cancellation of his candidature for concealment of facts.
9. 22.09.2008 The candidature of the Applicant was cancelled.
8. The above undisputed facts and events clearly reveal that the Applicant filed his Application Form on 10.11.2007 whereas he appeared before the Court in the case after about 50 days, on 8.1.2008. Thus, it can be logically concluded that while filling up the Application Form, he was not aware of the FIR No.18/2006 of P.S. Sardhana, Meerut (UP). Another aspect raised by the Respondents relate to the filling of the Attestation Form by the Applicant on 28.3.2008 and he appeared before the Court and granted bail on 8.1.2008, much before the form was filled. The Applicants case was that when he was not charged at the time of filling the Attestation Form, his involvement in the case was not there for him and did not inform the case details. But it is an admitted fact that once he was selected finally for the post and was acquitted (on 9.6.2008) having been charged on 6.6.2008, he voluntarily reported the facts to the Police authorities on 8.7.2008. The Show cause notice was issued to him only on 30.7.2008 proposing the cancellation of his candidature for concealment of the case in Application and Attestation Forms. Two aspects emerge from the above viz. (i) within 3 days of faming of charges against the Applicant, he was acquitted; and (ii) till the Applicant reported the facts, no action was initiated by the Respondents and the Show cause notice was sent only after the case was reported by him. The voluntary reporting of the case and his acquittal, though termed by the Respondents as cover up for non furnishing of the case information in those two Forms, we find that Applicant was genuine in his approach to keep his future employers fully informed of the facts.
9. On receipt of the show cause notice dated 30.07.2008, the Applicant submitted his reply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 4th Bn. DAP (Respondent No.2 herein). The learned Counsel for the Respondents drew our attention to the reply of the Applicant wherein it was stated The Applicant respectfully submits as under :- 1. That the applicant came to know about the NCR No.18/2006 dt. 25.10.2006 on 8.1.2008. Thereafter, he appeared and granted bail on 12.1.2008 by the concerned Court though he was never arrested. Thus, there was no concealment of facts about involvement in NCR No.18/2006 when the applicant filled up Application Form No.10.11.2007. It is noticed that the Applicant filled up his Application Form on 10.11.2007 and the Attestation Form on 28.03.2008. This issue has been analysed by us earlier where we concluded that at the time of filling up the Application Form he was unaware of the NCR No.18/2006 and when he filled up the Attestation Form he was not even charge sheeted. We find that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Applicant only after his voluntary reporting of the case where he was acquitted after analysis of the facts. The Applicant has been acquitted by the concerned Court. He has adduced convincing reasons as to why he furnished No in the respective columns of both Forms. Therefore, we come to the considered conclusion that the Applicant did not conceal and even did not have intention to conceal the facts of the case No.18/2006 in the Application and Attestation Forms.
10. We have carefully gone through the judgments cited and relied upon by the rival parties and found that judgment of Honble Supreme Court in one case fits well for the present OA.
11. In the case of State of Haryana and Others versus Dinesh Kumar [AIR 2008 SC 1083] decided on 08.01.2008 the Honourable Supreme Court dealt a case of appointment similar to the one we are considering in this OA. In Dinesh Kumar case (supra) the facts revealed that the respondent applied for appointment as Constable-Driver under the Haryana Police and submitted his application form, which contained two columns, namely, 13 (A): Have you ever been arrested? and 14 : Have you ever been convicted by the Court of any offence? As far as the respondent Dinesh Kumar in SLP (C) No.1840 of 2007 is concerned, he answered the said two queries in the negative. Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in connection with a case arising out of FIR No.168 of 13th October, 1994, registered at Kalanaur Police Station under Sections 323/324/34 Indian Penal Code. He and his family members were ultimately acquitted of the charges framed against them on 6th January, 1998. The appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had concealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had not correctly furnished the information in columns 13 (A) and 14 of the application form submitted by him for recruitment to the post in question. Since, according to the appellants, the respondent had failed to disclose the aforesaid criminal case involving him he was not offered any appointment. The appeal filed by the respondent was rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana. He moved the Honourable High Court where it was contended by the respondent that in connection with the aforesaid FIR No.168 dated 13th October, 1994, he had been granted bail on 17th October, 1994 without having been arrested. It was, therefore, contended on his behalf that since he had not been actually arrested and the case against him having ended in acquittal, it must be deemed that no case had ever been filed against him and hence he had not suppressed any information by replying in the negative and had not suppressed any material while filling up the said columns 13 (A) and 14. The Honourable High Court quashed the order of rejection by the Director General of Police, Haryana on 18th November, 2005 and directed the appellants to take steps to issue an appointment letter to the respondent subject to fulfillment of other conditions by him. The Honourable High Court held that since the petitioner had been acquitted from the criminal case in question, he had quite truthfully answered the query in column 14 by stating that he had never been convicted by any Court and even column 13 (A) had been correctly answered because he had never been arrested, though he had obtained bail in connection with the said case. The respondent had not surrendered to the police but had appeared before the Magistrate with his lawyer of his own volition and was immediately granted bail. Admittedly, therefore, the respondent had not surrendered to the police but had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate and had prayed for bail and was released on bail, so that as per the respondents understanding at no point of time was he taken into custody or arrested. The question that came up for Honourable Supreme Court to decide in the case was what would constitute arrest? Arrest and custody has been the subject matter of decisions of different High Courts. The Honourable Supreme Court has also considered the said question in a few cases, referred to the dictionary meaning of the two expressions. While affirming the view taken by the Honourable High Court in Dinesh Kumars case, the Honourable Supreme Court decided as follows :-
When the question as to what constitutes arrest has for long engaged the attention of different High Courts as also this Court, it may not be altogether unreasonable to expect a layman to construe that he had never been arrested on his appearing before the Court and being granted bail immediately. The position would have been different, had the person concerned not been released on bail. We would, in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and concealment of facts
12. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case and accepting the judicial dicta of Honble Apex Court in Dinesh Kumars case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has made out a strong case in his favour. In the result, the Original Application is allowed. We direct the Respondents (a) to take steps to issue appointment letter to the Applicant subject to fulfillment of other conditions by him; (b) the Applicant shall be deemed to have been appointed with effect from the date candidates lower in merit to him as per the merit list approved by the Competent Authority are appointed; and (c) the Applicant, in such an event, shall have his seniority according to the merit list, but shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary and allowances. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respective parties will bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
/pj/