Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Delhi Police on 4 July, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 8th April, 2011
% Judgment Pronounced on: July 04, 2011
+ WP (C) No. 1528/2011
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Adv.
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhawa, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1 Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 1 of 23
the legal acceptability of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short „the tribunal‟) in OA
No. 2482/2010.
2. The brief resumé of facts which are imperative to be stated are that
in response to an advertisement dated 11.10.2007 issued by the respondent,
the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police.
He had submitted his application form on 22.11.2007 and attestation form
on 25.9.2008. After clearing all the tests as well as interview, he was
declared provisionally selected subject to verification of his character and
antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. On receipt
of the verification report dated 10.11.2008 relating to his character and
antecedents, it was found that he had been involved in a criminal case FIR
No.156/99 dated 29.9.1999 under Sections 332/353/341/186 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short „the IPC‟) P.S. Kharkhoda, Haryana but he had not
disclosed his involvement / acquittal in the above mentioned case in the
relevant columns of application as well as attestation form. A show cause
notice was issued to him on 13.3.2009 proposing cancellation of his
candidature for the post of Constable (Driver). On receipt of the
explanation of the petitioner, the appointing authority did not find the
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 2 of 23
explanation given by him to be convincing and satisfactory and,
accordingly, his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) was
cancelled by order dated 4.5.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, he
submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police which was
rejected on 20.8.2009.
3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, the petitioner preferred
O.A. No.2595/1999 and the said application was decided on 19.5.2010
whereby the tribunal quashed the order dated 20.8.2009 and directed the
competent authority to pass a detailed speaking order. In pursuance of the
directions given by the tribunal, the case of the petitioner was re-examined
and the competent authority, taking note of the fact that on two different
occasions he had concealed the fact of his having been involved in a
criminal case, opined that he was not considered suitable for appointment
in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. Being grieved by the aforesaid
order, the petitioner preferred OA No.2482/2010 on the grounds that he
was acquitted by the concerned court on merits in the year 2000 seven
years prior to applying for the post and, hence, the same cannot be a
disqualification for his appointment; that mentioning of the word „NO‟ in
the relevant column of the application and attestation form was a bonafide
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 3 of 23
mistake and an error of judgment as he was not going to get any benefit
from such concealment; that the non-disclosure of information relating to a
criminal case in which he had been acquitted was no ground for
withholding appointment; and that under similar circumstances, one
Constable Kapil Kumar had been recruited but the petitioner had been
treated in a different manner which tantamounts to discrimination.
4. The respondent, in oppugnation, contended that the case of the
petitioner had been examined carefully by the competent authority and
regard being had to the concealment, a conscious decision was taken. It
was averred that on two separate occasions, he concealed his involvement
in the criminal case by not mentioning the same and, therefore, it is an act
of deliberate suppression which makes him unsuitable for appointment in
a disciplined force like the Delhi Police which requires highest levels of
integrity and moral conduct and that there is no illegality or infirmity in
the order passed by the respondent.
5. The tribunal referred to column 14 of the application form and
Column 13 of the attestation form and the manner in which the petitioner
had filled up the form and distinguished the decision rendered in Govt. of
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 4 of 23
NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Robin Singh, 171 (2010) DLT 705 (DB) and came to
hold as follows:
"14. From the aforesaid observations of the High
Court in Robin Singh's case (supra) especially views
contained in para 49 above, it cannot be laid down as a
proposition of law that a person would be undesirable
for induction in the service force merely because of his
involvement in a criminal case in which he
subsequently came to be acquitted. There can be no
straight jacket formula in the matters and the
respondents would be duty bound to examine each case
on its own merits having regard to the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case and then decide as
to whether the person is really unsuitable for induction
in the service or not. The Hon‟ble High Court has
emphasized the need for having suitable guidelines
with regard to categories/acts/offences which may or
may not prohibit one‟s induction into police service.
This non-suitability for induction into police service has
to be further supplemented by requiring the
respondents to record their reasons in reaching a given
conclusion in such matters.
15. The applicant has also challenged the order
canceling his candidature on the ground of
discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India since in a similar matter of Ct.
Kapil Kumar (5729/DAP) wherein the recruit Constable
had not disclosed about his involvement in a criminal
case, the respondents had imposed on him only the
punishment of censure but in the case of the applicant
differential treatment has been meted out.
16. In view of this, we are of the view that in the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as
discussed above, the ends of justice would be met by
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 5 of 23
remitting the case back to the respondents to review the
case of the applicant in the light of the guidelines drawn
up (consequent to the Robin Singh‟s case judgment) and
then take a final decision in the matter. The decision
taken would need to be communicated to the applicant
through issue of a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with the guidelines."
6. We have heard Mr.Avadh Bihari Kaushik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Vinod Wadhawa, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the
acquittal had taken place long back, the selection should not have been
cancelled. It is his further submission that apart from the time factor, the
age of the petitioner and the factum of bonafide also should have been
considered and a rational view should have been taken. To bolster the
said submission, he has commended us to the decisions in T.S. Vasudavan
Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre & Ors., 1988 (Supp.)
SCC 795, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1996) 4 SCC 17,
Kirpal Singh v. Union of India and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3084/2001 decided on 21st September, 2001), Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
v. Jitender Kumar, 147 (2008) DLT 278 (DB), Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Ram Niwas (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2417/2010 decided on 27th
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 6 of 23
July, 2010), Robin Singh (supra), Rahul Yadav v. CISF & Anr, 178 (2011)
DLT 263 (DB) and Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar,
(2011) 4 SCC 644.
8. Mr. Wadhawa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per
contra submitted that the order passed by the tribunal is absolutely
impregnable inasmuch as the petitioner was a matriculate and the
information that was sought for was solely for the purpose of finding out
the antecedents of the petitioner as that is very essential for adjudging the
suitability for entering into a post in the disciplined force. It is canvassed
by him that the action of the petitioner would vividly reflect that there is a
deliberate suppression and an endeavour has been made to keep the
employer in dark and further the petitioner has totally ignored the
stipulations and the warnings on the application and attestation forms
and, therefore, no illegality can be found in the order of the tribunal. To
buttress his proponements, the learned counsel for the respondent has
commended us to the decisions in R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General
of Police & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 660 and Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of
India & Ors, JT 2010 (13) SC 791.
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 7 of 23
9. Before we advert to the factual score in the case at hand, it is
appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field with regard to the
necessity of filling of the aforesaid forms in a correct and apposite manner
and the role of a candidate in the said context. In the case of Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, the
Apex Court was dealing with the issue of improper filling of form by a
candidate who was selected for the post of physical education teacher in
Kendriya Vidhyalaya. The candidate had answered in the negative with
regard to the question whether he had ever been prosecuted/kept in
detention or bound down or fined, convicted by a Court of Law of any
offence. Similarly, in response to the question whether any case was
pending in any Court of Law at the time of filling of his attestation form,
he had answered stating „NO‟. As there was suppression, his services
were terminated which compelled him to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal which declined to interfere. In the writ petition
preferred before the High Court, the High Court set aside the decision on
the ground that the candidate has prosecuted his studies in Hindi, the
criminal case was withdrawn and that he was not involved in an offence
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 8 of 23
pertaining to moral turpitude. The Apex Court, while reversing the
decision of the High Court, stated thus:
"11. It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered
under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34
IPC was pending on the date when the respondent
filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given
by the respondent as against Columns 12 and 13 as
"No" is plainly suppression of material information and
it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the respondent
is holder of B.A, B.Ed and M.Ed degrees. Assuming
even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout,
no prudent man can accept that he did not study
English language at all at any stage of his education. It
is also not the case of the respondent that he did not
study English at all. If he could understand Columns 1-
11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to
accept his version that he could not correctly
understand the contents of Columns 12 and 13. Even
otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain
English words, in the ordinary course he could have
certainly taken the help of somebody. This being the
position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the
contention of the respondent and the High Court
committed a manifest error in accepting the contention
that because the medium of instruction of the
respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the
contents of Columns 12 and 13. It is not the case that
Columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could
not have said "No" as against Columns 12 and 13
without understanding the contents. Subsequent
withdrawal of criminal case registered against the
respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion,
were not material. The requirement of filling Columns 12
and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of
verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 9 of 23
on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression
of material information and making a false statement has a
clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the
respondent in relation to his continuance in service.
12. ...The purpose of seeking information as per Columns
12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of
the offence of the result of a criminal case ultimately. The
information in the said columns was sought with a view to
judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to
continue in service or not."
(emphasis in original)
10. In R. Radhakrishnan (supra), the petitioner had withheld the
information in the application form while seeking appointment as Fireman
and in that context, their Lordships have ruled thus -
"10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain
appointment in a uniformed service. The standard
expected of a person intended to serve in such a service
is different from the one of a person who intended to
serve in other services. Application for appointment
and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in
English. He, therefore, knew and understood the
implication of his statement or omission to disclose a
vital information. The fact that in the event such a
disclosure had been made, the authority could have
verified his character as also suitability of the
appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that the persons who had not made such disclosure and
were, thus, similar situated had not been appointed."
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 10 of 23
11. In A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu &
Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 177, their Lordships have opined thus -
"7. ...The explanation that it was irrelevant or
emanated from inadvertence is unacceptable. In our
view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the
ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and contending
that a person who indulges in such suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence
does not deserve any public employment. We
completely endorse this view."
12. In the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), a two-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court referred to Union of India & Ors. v. Bipad Bhanjan
Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar,
(2008) 3 SCC 222, R. Radhakrishnan (supra), Secretary, Department of
Home Secretary, A.P. & Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 and
Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) and came to hold as follows: -
"13.1. If the object of the query is to ascertain the
antecedents and character of the candidate to consider
his fitness and suitability for employment, and if the
consequence of a wrong answer can be rejection of his
application for appointment, or termination from
service if already appointed, the least that is expected of
the employer is to ensure that the query was clear,
specific and unambiguous. Obviously, the employer
cannot dismiss/discharge/terminate an employee, for
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 11 of 23
misunderstanding a vague and complex question, and
giving a wrong answer.
14. We do hope that the CRPF and other uniformed
services will use clear and simple questions and avoid
any variations between the English and Hindi versions.
They may also take note of the fact that the ambiguity
and vague questions will lead to hardship and mistakes
and make the questions simple, clear and
straightforward. Be that as it may.
15. But in this case, the appellant is not entitled to
any benefit of doubt on the question whether he knew
the meaning and purport of questions 12(a) and (b).
Even assuming that there was ambiguity in the English
version of the questions, a reading of the Hindi version
of the questions shows a clear indication of the
information that was required to be furnished by the
declarant. The appellant read the questions in Hindi
and answered them in Hindi. We extract below an
English translation of query 12(a) in Hindi to show that
there was no ambiguity in regard to the question:
English Translation of the question in Hindi
"Have you ever been arrested for any offence or
have been prosecuted or have been taken in custody
or have been released on bail or have been
fined/convicted by court of law or have been
debarred/disqualified by any Public Service
Commission from appearing at its examination/
selection or debarred from taking any
examination/restricted by any university or any
other educational authority/institution?"
(emphasis supplied)
15.1. The fact that a criminal case was registered
against the appellant is not disputed. The fact that no
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 12 of 23
criminal case was pending against him, when he gave
the verification declaration in the year 2004, or the fact
that he was not convicted or fined or bound down in
any case, loses relevance, when he clearly suppressed
the material fact that he was prosecuted and thereby
made a false statement. Though the English version of
the questions could have used a little more clarity, we
cannot agree with the contention that he was misled
into answering the question wrongly, as the Hindi
version of the questions which were answered by the
appellant did not suffer from any vagueness or
ambiguity.
16. We are satisfied that the appellant had knowingly
made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in
any criminal case. Therefore, the employer (CRPF) was
justified in dispensing with his services for not being
truthful in giving material information regarding his
antecedents which were relevant for employment in a
uniformed service, and that itself justified his discharge
from service. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal as
having no merit."
13. In the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), their Lordships took note of
the incident when the respondent therein, aged about 20 years, had
committed an indiscretion and opined thus -
"10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh
students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book Due
Process of Law. It appears that some students of Wales
were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and
they were upset because the radio programmes were
being broadcast in the English language and not in
Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 13 of 23
Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court
Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:
"I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point.
He says that the sentences were excessive. I do
not think they were excessive, at the time they
were given and in the circumstances then
existing. Here was a deliberate interference with
the course of justice in a case which was no
concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge
to show - and to show to all students everywhere
- that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let
students demonstrate, if they please, for the
causes in which they believe. Let them make their
protests as they will. But they must do it by
lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike
at the course of justice in this land - and I speak
both for England and Wales - they strike at the
roots of society itself, and they bring down that
which protects them. It is only by the
maintenance of law and order that they are
privileged to be students and to study and live in
peace. So let them support the law and not strike
it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been
vindicated by the sentences which the Judge
passed on Wednesday of last week. He has
shown that law and order must be maintained,
and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things
are changed. These students here no longer defy
the law. They have appealed to this Court and
shown respect for it. They have already served a
week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep
them inside it any longer. These young people are
no ordinary criminals. There is no violence,
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 14 of 23
dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there
was much that we should applaud. They wish to
do all they can to preserve the Welsh language.
Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of
the bards - of the poets and the singers - more
melodious by far than our rough English tongue.
On high authority, it should be equal in Wales
with English. They have done wrong - very
wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But,
that having been shown, I think we can, and
should, show mercy on them. We should permit
them to go back to their studies, to their parents
and continue the good course which they have so
wrongly disturbed."
[Vide: Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 at
p. 124 CH.]
In our opinion, we should display the same
wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits
indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the
respondent did not mention that he was involved in a
criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he
did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he
would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it
was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or
rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in
the matter.""
14. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to refer to the decision in
Kuldeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 179 (2011) Delhi Law Times 59
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 15 of 23
(DB) wherein the Division Bench, after referring to the information sought
vide column Nos. 12(a), expressed it as a complex one and proceeded to
state as follows: -
"10. Meaningfully read and as we understand, what
the petitioner intends to plead is that a false case was
registered against him and his father and brother and
since on the date when he filled up the verification role
he was not facing any criminal trial, the alleged incident
being 8 years old i.e. dated 26.10.2001; and he being
honourably acquitted on 18.7.2003, he was mislead, in
view of the complexity of the question, by informing in
the negative.
11. We note that in an unreported decision of the
Supreme Court dated 24.11.2010 deciding CA No.
9913/2010, Daya Shankar Yadav v. UOI and Ors., IX
(2010) SLT 14, a similarly worded complex question was
held to be capable of being misunderstood and the view
taken was that in such situation a wrong answer would
not entitle the employer to dismiss the employee.
12. But, we may hasten to add that as in the instant
case in the said case the Hindi version of the question
was found to be simple, clear and straightforward.
Since the appellant therein had read and answered the
verification role in Hindi, the Supreme Court did not
grant benefit of any confusion to the appellant before it.
13. In the instant case we find that the petitioner has
furnished the relevant information in English and has
written 'No' pertaining to information sought vide
Column Nos. 12(a) and 12(b). Similarly, we find that the
form has been filled up in English and all information
has been provided in English.
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 16 of 23
14. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner would
be entitled to relief in view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Daya Shankar Yadav's case (supra)
and additionally for the fact that the alleged incident
took place in the year 2001; petitioner was acquitted in
the year 2003; he was aged 16 years when the incident
took place; he filled up the form in the year 2009 after 8
years of the incident and 6 years of petitioner being
acquitted. It is apparent that the petitioner had only
hazy memories in his mind and coupled with the fact
that the information sought has been worded not only
in a very complex manner but is even otherwise
confusing, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of
a doubt of not deliberately furnishing false
information."
15. The present factual matrix has to be decided on the anvil of the
aforesaid pronouncements.
16. The fulcrum of the matter is whether the finding recorded by the
tribunal that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is correct
as he has not given complete requisite details and further that the plea of
the petitioner that he was only a matriculate and did not understand that
the judgment of acquittal would not weigh in his favour, was not
acceptable. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Column 14 of the
application form which reads as follows:-
"14. Have you ever been arrested, or any FIR
registered against you, or have you been tried in the
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 17 of 23
court of law for any offence or convicted by the court, or
filled any bond asked for by the Court? At the time of
filing up this form is any criminal case or proceeding
pending in the court of law or are you involved in any
civil case? If so, give details."
17. There is a warning at the top of the application form which is as
follows: -
"WARNING
1. The furnishing of false information or
suppression of any factual information in the
application form would be a disqualification and is
likely to render the candidate unfit for the employment
under Government. If the fact that false information
has been furnished or there has b3een suppression of
any factual information in the application form comes
to notice at any time during the service of a person, his
services would be liable to be terminated."
18. The petitioner, while filling up column 14 of the application form,
has answered in a categorical „NO‟.
19. After the provisional selection, the petitioner was required to fill up
the attestation form for the purpose of verification of character and
antecedents.
20. Be it noted, there is a warning in the Form which is as follows:
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 18 of 23
""WARNING" the furnishing of false information or
suppression of any factual information in the attestation
form would be disqualification and is likely to render
candidate unfit for employment under the
Government."
21. Column 13 of the attestation form reads as follows: -
"(a) Have you been arrested/prosecuted kept under
detention of bound down/fined, convicted by a court of
law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any
Public Service Commission from appearing at its
examination/selection or debarred from any other
educational authority/institution.
(b) Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against
you in any Police station? If Yes, give complete detail.
(c) If any case pending against you in any court of
law university or any other education
authority/institution at the time of filling up this
attestation form (if the answer to (a) and (b) is „Yes‟, full
particulars of the case arrest, detention, fine, conviction,
sentence etc. in the nature of the case pending in the
country, university/education authority etc., at the time
of filling up this form should be given.
NOTE: Please also see the warning at the top of the
attestation form."
22. Quite apart from the above, as is reflectible from Column 13, there is
also an addition to the warning at the top of the relevant forms to see the
warning at the top of the attestation form. The petitioner had filled up the
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 19 of 23
attestation form in English on 25th September, 2008 and against columns
13(a), (b) and (c), had stated „No‟. The tribunal, analyzing this aspect, has
expressed the view that when there is warning in both the application
form and attestation form, which was also highlighted in bold and capital
letters at the top, it is improbable that the petitioner who is a matriculate
did not understand that it was incumbent on his part to mention the
relevant fact of his involvement in the criminal case. The tribunal has also
opined that the contention that he was not convicted in the case was a
specious argument did not commend acceptation.
23. If the entire gamut of facts is scanned under nuanced scrutiny, there
can be no ounce of doubt that there is a suppression of fact. In the Law
Lexicon of P. Ramanatha Aiyar, the word „suppression‟ has been defined
thus:
"Where there is an obligation to speak a failure to speak
will constitute "suppression of a fact" but where there is
no obligation to speak silence cannot be termed
"suppression"."
24. In Black‟s Law Dictionary, „suppressio veri‟ has been defined thus:
"Suppression or concealment of the truth. It is a rule of
equity, as well as of law, that a suppression very is
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 20 of 23
equivalent to a suggestion falsi; and where either the
suppression of the truth or the suggestion of what is
false can be proved, in a fact material to the contract, the
party injured may have relief against the contract."
25. Thus understood, we are of the considered opinion that the
petitioner was under obligation to state the facts in terms of the questions
posed. When one is obliged under law to speak the truth but conceals the
same, it tantamounts to suppression of truth and expression of what is
false. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Collector
of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538
wherein it has been stated that suppression envisages a deliberate or
conscious omission to state a fact with the intention of deriving wrongful
gain. Neither equity nor law comes to the aid of such a person. As is
evident, in the case, the petitioner had deliberately and consciously
answered in the negative despite the queries and the questions being
cleared only to gain the benefit of appointment.
26. Ergo, the view expressed by the tribunal is totally defensible, for the
petitioner was seeking an appointment to the post of a Constable (Driver)
in Delhi Police Force, a disciplined force. He was a matriculate. The
purpose of filling of these Forms in a correct manner is to verify the
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 21 of 23
character and antecedents of an applicant. The petitioner, in a mercurial
manner, may contend that he had been acquitted but the same has no
bearing as the purpose was to adjudge the character and antecedents of
such person. On a perusal of the Forms and the warnings, it is
luminescent that furnishing of such information was imperative. It is not
such a Form where one can even miss it. It is also not a complex one. On
the contrary, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner being a
matriculate had deliberately indulged in the act of omission and preferred
not to disclose the relevant information. Thus, the cancellation of his
appointment by the authority and the affirmation thereof by the tribunal
cannot be considered to be illegal or infirm.
27. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the tribunal that
cancelling the candidature cannot be regarded as arbitrary or unjust and it
cannot be said that there is legal infirmity in the action of the respondent.
We will be failing in our duty if we do not take notice of the fact that the
tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order has remitted the matter to the
authorities for reconsideration on the anvil of parity as envisaged under
Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not intend to say anything on that
score in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner.
WP (C) 1528/2011 page 22 of 23
28. Ex consequenti, the writ petition, being sans substance, stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 04, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
dk/kapil WP (C) 1528/2011 page 23 of 23