Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Kumar vs Caj, Jodhpur & Ors. on 12 January, 2015
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas, Jaishree Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
:::
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9185/2014
Rajesh Kumar Vs.CAJ, Jodhpur & Ors.
And
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9211/2014
Madan Lal Poonia Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors.
Date of order: 12.01.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Mr. Trilok Johsi, for the petitioners.
<><><> Both these writ petitions are arising out from the common judgment dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Johdpur (hereinafter referred to as the CAT for short) whereby the CAT dismissed the review applications filed by both the petitioners to review the judgment passed in OA Nos. 578/2011 and 579/2011.
As per the brief facts of the case, the petitioners Madan Lal Pooniya and Rajesh Kumar preferred OA Nos.578/2011 and 579/2011 respectively on the ground that they were selected for the post 2 of Social Security Assistant in the Punjab Region of EPF Organization which is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Chandigarh and they have executed the offer of appointment. The petitioners fill up their profile attestation roll and submitted the same to the respondents and those attestation forms were forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) for verification of their character and antecedents, but after verification of the facts, the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar reported that both the petitioners were involved in some criminal case. According to the report, against the petitioner Madan Lal Pooniya FIR bearing No.534 dated 25.10.2003 was lodged for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 325, 334, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar and in that case the learned trial court vide order dated 4.9.2004, acquitted him from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 326/149 IPC and by its decision acquitted him from the charges under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC on the basis of compromise. Another FIR No.96 dated 7.3.2004 under Section 341, 323, 504 and 34 IPC was also registered against him in the same police station 3 and the trial court vide its order dated 26.8.2004 acquitted him from the above charges on the basis of compromise, therefore, denial of appointment on the ground of registration of criminal case is illegal.
In the case of Rajesh Kumar, an FIR No.534 dated 25.10.2003 for criminal case was registered under Section 307, 326, 325, 234, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC in which later on Rajesh Kumar was acquitted by the learned trial court. The petitioners did not disclose the aforesaid facts while filing the attestation forms even though there were specific column therein asking them whether they are involved in criminal case or not, but it was only on verification of their character and their antecedents, the said information came to the knowledge of the respondents. According to this, they did not disclose those information as they have already been acquitted by the learned trial court of all those criminal cases and the criminal charges were due to domestic dispute among the family members/relatives in which they were falsely implicated, but subsequently, entered into compromise and settled the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the criminal 4 cases both the petitioners were acquitted from the charges leveled against them therefore obviously in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar reorted in 2011 (DNL) SC 710 the respondents are under obligation to appoint the petitioners, but unfortunately the respondents cancelled the appointment order on the ground that petitioners have failed to disclose true information in the application form.
The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if some petty offences are committed at the time age of 20 to 25 years by young boy who can often commit such indiscretion which can be condoned. Therefore, it is prayed that judgment of the tribunal may be quashed and on the basis of fact that petitioners were acquitted from the criminal cases upon compromise, the impugned orders under challenge passed by the CAT may kindly be quashed and the respondents may kindly be directed to provide appointment to the petitioners on the post of Social Security Assistant.
After hearing the learned counsel for the 5 petitioners, we are of the opinion that there is no quarrel with regard to the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that candidature of the candidate shall not be cancelled, if the candidate is acquitted in the criminal case on the basis of compromise or acquitted from the charges leveled against him, but here in this case, there is no question of denial of appointment on the acquittal based upon compromise in the criminal case but it is a case of concealment of fact of registration of the criminal case in which the petitioners were acuiqtted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors reported in 2013 STPL (Web) 608 SC held that the purpose of seeking information with regard to criminal case is to assess the suitability of the candidate. Therefore, even though the candidate is acquitted from the charges leveled against him in the FIR registered prior to initiation of selection, the candidate is required to give details of those cases in the column specifically provided in the application form or verification form but herein in this case, admittedly, the information with regard to 6 registration of the criminal case in which petitioners were said to be acquitted are not disclosed and upon verification the fact of registration of criminal case in which the petitioners were acquitted was reported by the Magistrate concerned. Therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The para no.22 and 23 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced as under:
22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case.7
23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. "Subla Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide:
Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650).Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur)."
Upon perusal of aforesaid adjudication and the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to adjudge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. The aforesaid judgment is fully applicable upon the facts of the present case because fact of registration of the criminal case in which petitioners were acquitted subsequently was not disclosed by them. Therefore, in our view, the judgment rendered by the tribunal 8 impugned in the writ petition does not require any interference because the judgment is in consonance with the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra). In view of the above, both these writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. cpgoyal/-