Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rinku Chahar vs Delhi Police on 27 May, 2025
1
Item No. 40
Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2074/2023
Reserved on: 15.05.2025
Pronounced on: 27.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Rinku Chahar
PIS No. 28224212
Ex. Const. (Ex.) in Delhi Police
Aged about 23 years
S/o Sh. Shiv Dayal Singh
R/o Vill: Nagla Jhilara
PO: Akola, Distt: Agra
UP-283102 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
2. Deputy Director/DPA
Jharoda Kalan, Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police
PHQ, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. B.N.P. Pathak)
2
Item No. 40
Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(a) To call for the records for the case and quash and set aside the Order dt. 8.7.2022 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.
(b) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. In response to notice, counter reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed. By way of the counter reply, the respondents have disputed the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the OA. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present OA are that in response to Advertisement issued by the respondents, the applicant applied for recruitment to the post of Const. (Exe) Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2020. He was provisionally selected for the post subject to satisfactory verification of character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. Subsequently, he was issued an 3 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 offer of appointment dated 24.02.2022 with a direction to join the basic training course commencing w.e.f. 07.03.2022 at DPA, Jharoda Kalan which he joined on 15.03.2022. However, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2022, he has been dismissed from service under the proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and Point 02 (A)(i) of S.O. No. HRD/12/2022 on the ground that he suppressed the information regarding his criminal involvement while filling the Attestation Form. It has also been mentioned in the said order that 'the concealment of facts regarding involvement in criminal case at initial stage clearly reflects his melafide intention.'
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely named by the accused persons involved in the case FIR No. 395/2020 and when he came to know from order dated 08.07.2022 about his being continued as accused in case FIR No. 395/2020, he approached the Hon'ble Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Agra. The Court framed charges and finally acquitted the applicant vide judgment dated 23.03.2023. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was not aware about his being continued as accused in the FIR No. 395/2020 after 11.01.2021 as he never received any notice/summons from the police and court till 15.03.2022. He came to know about it on receiving order dated 08.07.2022. Learned counsel submits that the order of termination is stigmatic and punitive. It is also in violation of principles of natural 4 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India as the applicant was not given any opportunity to defend himself. He has further argued that otherwise also, for mere suppression of material/false information, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. Learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments in support of his claim:
(i) order/judgment dated 24.10.2007 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 970/2007 titled Rajesh Kumar vs UOI & Ors.
(ii) order/judgment dated 01.05.2008 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1508/2007 titled Ex. Ct. (Exe.) Prem Kumar vs. GNCTD & Ors.
(iii) judgment dated 07.01.2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM No. 75/2009 in WP(C) No. 29/2009 titled GNCTD vs. Prem Kumar
(iv) judgment dated 02.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 3574/2022 titled Pawan Kumar vs. UOI & Anr
(v) order/judgment dated 01.10.2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3428/2022 titled Mahavir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on receipt of verification report from SSP/Agra (UP) vide letter dated 30.04.2022, it was revealed that the applicant was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 395/2020 u/s 363/366 IPC PS Malpura (UP) 5 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 and at a later stage, 354(A) IPC, 366 A IPC & 7/8 of POCSO Act were added. The Attestation Form filled by the applicant on 14.01.2022 was scrutinized and it revealed that he had mentioned 'NAHI' in relevant column Nos. 15(i) (e) in response to whether any FIR was ever registered against him and he has mentioned 'No' in column 15(ii) also. Moreover, an undertaking was also taken from the applicant on 10.03.2022 wherein he affirmed that 'I have not concealed any facts in the Application Form as well as in the Attestation Form.' The applicant was detained in District Jail from 22.12.2020 and released on bail vide order dated 11.01.2021 after furnishing a bond of one lakh rupees and two sureties of equal amount vide Bail Application No. 4516/2020. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the applicant was thoroughly examined and a final decision was taken that he had suppressed his criminal involvement while filling the Attestation Form. Therefore, the services of the applicant were terminated since his selection and appointment was purely provisional and subject to receipt of police verification.
7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the assertions made in paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 of the OA has argued that the applicant was falsely named by the accused persons namely Prem Prakash and Yogender involved in the case FIR No. 395/2020, PS Malpura, Agra, UP and the applicant was told by the local police that only these two persons are the accused persons in the said case FIR. 6 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 He has argued that these facts have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter reply inasmuch as the same have only vaguely been denied. It is further added by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was terminated from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the impugned order is neither in the format prescribed under such Rules nor the same is an order simplicitor. Rather, the same is apparently stigmatic and, therefore, not sustainable in law. He has further argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar (supra), the respondents were required to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration and, therefore, they have wrongly passed the impugned order keeping in view the fact that the respondents while passing the impugned order have not taken into consideration the statement of the prosecution witnesses, duly considered by the Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge in its order dated 23.03.2023 acquitting the applicant in the said case FIR and order/judgment dated 11.01.2021 granting bail to him. He concludes that in such facts and circumstances and the binding precedents referred to hereinabove, the OA deserves to be allowed and he prays accordingly.
7Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and we have also gone through the judgments referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. The impugned order of termination dated 08.07.2022 reads as under:
"Rect. Const. Rinku Chahar No. 49683/DPA (PIS No. 28224214) (Roll No. 3001625367) S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Singh R/o Village Nagla Jhilara, Post Akola, District Agra, UP-283102, has applied for the post of Constable (Exe) Male in Delhi Police 2020 and declared selected provisionally, subject to satisfactory verification of Character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. He joined Delhi Police on 15.03.2022 and is undergoing basic training at Delhi Police Academy II, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. The police verification report received in Recruitment Cell, Delhi Police from SSP/Agra (UP) Vide PVR-84/2022 Dated 30.04.2022, it is revealed that Rect. Const. Rinku Chahar No. 49683/DPA (PIS No. 28224214) (Roll No. 3001625367) is involved in Criminal case vide FIR NO.
395/2020 U/S 363/366 IPC, PS/Malpura, later on added U/S 354(A) IPC, 366-A IPC & 7/8 POCSO ACT which is to court. At the time of filling up of Attestation Form, he did not mention about his involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant column of Attestation Form filled up by him on 14.01.2022 & furnished wrong information and concealed the facts of his involvement in criminal case. At Column No. 1 of the Attestation Form it is clearly mentioned that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Govt. Thus, he had suppressed his criminal involvement in Attestation Form. The concealment of facts regarding involvement in criminal case at initial stage clearly reflects his melafide intention.
In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 and Point 02 (A)(I) of S.O No. HRD/12/2022, 1, Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Director (Admin)Delhi Police Academy, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi hereby terminate forthwith the services of Rect. Const. Rinku Chahar No 49683/DPA (PLS No. 28224214) (Roll No. 8 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 3001625367) and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing him immediately before the date on which this order is served or, as the case may be tendered to him."
10. From the aforesaid impugned order, it is apparent that the applicant has been terminated from service on the ground that on inquiry about his antecedents, it was revealed that he had furnished wrong information and concealed the fact of his involvement in criminal case. He has also been found guilty of suppressing his criminal involvement in Attestation Form and his mala fide intention. Thus, the order is apparently not an order simplicitor but passed on account of delinquency, however, proved without holding any inquiry and affording an opportunity of defence to the applicant in the matter. It is also found that except the report received from the concerned police station, neither order(s)/judgment(s) of the Learned Court of Additional District and Session Judge have been considered nor the applicant has been accorded opportunity to explain before passing the impugned order. Furthermore, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the order/judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) has reproduced the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and also the prescribed format in which the order under such provision is to be passed. The same reads as under:
"9. Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is as follows:9 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023
5. Termination of Temporary Service (1)(a) The services of a temporary Government shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority, or by Appointing Authority to Government servant;
(b) the period of notice shall be one month;
Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 also include form of order to be issued and it would be instructive to see that;
Form II Order of termination of service issued under the proviso to sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
In pursuance of the Proviso to Sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, .. (name and designation) hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri/Shrimati/Kumari .. and direct that he/she shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his/her pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he/she was drawing them immediately before the termination of his/her service or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."
11. In the present case, after the verification/inquiry about his criminal antecedents, the respondents have passed the impugned order. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) has found that a stigmatic order, if passed even after giving a show cause notice violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 152 and also the protection granted under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as would be 10 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 evident from paragraphs 10-12 of the order/judgment in Rajesh Kumar (supra) which read as under:
"10. A simple reading of the impugned order by which the service of the Applicant has been terminated would show that it is not an order of termination simpliciter but stigmatic in nature. It is not in Form II which we have quoted above, but is a detailed order based on enquiry conducted by the authorities. In Chandra Prakash Shahi V. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 5 SCC 152 the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
28. The important principles which are deducible on the concept of motive and foundation, concerning a probationer, are that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an enquiry is held and it is on the basis of that enquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an enquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that enquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the enquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct against the employee. In this situation, the order would be founded on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of motive (emphasis added). The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed further that [T]he benefit and protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is available not only to temporary servants but also to a probationer and the Court in an appropriate case would be justified in lifting the veil to find out the true nature of the order by which the services were terminated. (emphasis supplied).
The facts are very clear in this case. There is no need even to lift the veil because the impugned order is obviously punitive in nature
11. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is reproduced below:
311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State 11 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
In Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra) the Apex Court has extended the protection of Article 311 (2) to an official on probation also.
12. We are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the Respondents, that reasonable opportunity has been given to the Applicant through show cause notice and also by giving him an opportunity to represent against the order of the DA. If it were so, then the disciplinary authority may feel satisfied by taking this short cut and dispense with regular departmental enquiry as prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 or Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 etc. Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India mandates that reasonable opportunity should be given to a civil servant to defend himself. The Honourable Apex Court has given the protection of Article 311 (2) to a probationer also, in case an order is punitive in nature. Rule 14 of DP (P&A) Rules stipulate that [P]unishment mentioned at Sl. No. (i) to (vii) in Rule 5 supra shall be awarded by appointing authorities only after regular departmental enquiry. Dismissal and Removal from service are, inter aha, authorized punishments under Rule 5 of the DP (P&A) Rules. In the present case the service of the Applicant has been terminated under Proviso to Rule 5 (1) (a) of CCS (Temporary) Service) Rules, 1965. The order has been passed not in Form II, prescribed under the abovesaid Rules, but in a detailed manner. The order is stigmatic. Therefore, it is our considered view that procedure of regular departmental enquiry should have been followed in the present case, before inflicting the punishment of termination on the Applicant. Needless to say, we are refraining from passing any comments on the merits of the case."
12. Further, in the case of Ex. Ct. (Exe.) Prem Kumar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the provisions of Rules and binding precedents has held in paragraph 6 thereof as under:
"...We may only mention that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India in view of the provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution. The settled law on the issue is that be it a case of an employee who is employed temporarily or on probation, if the order terminating his services is punitive, he would have the protection of 12 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023 Article 311(2), and that being so, he cannot be asked to quit before an enquiry is held in the matter and he is found guilty of the allegations subject matter of the misconduct. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and has necessarily to be followed."
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 07.01.2009 in WP(C) No. 29/2009 has upheld the Tribunal's order in the case of Prem Kumar (supra).
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3574/2022 titled Pawan Kumar vs. UOI & Anr., after considering the three Judge Bench judgment in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., has held in paragraph 13 as under:
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service."
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and binding precedents, we are of the considered view that the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed with following orders:
(i) the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 is set aside
(ii) the applicant shall be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal with consequential benefits in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject 13 Item No. 40 Court-2 OA No. 2074/2023
(iii) the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
(iv) the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, if they so decide, however, of course in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
16. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/