Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Papendra Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 23 May, 2023
1
OA No.1815/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.1815/2022
Reserved on: 16.05.2023
Pronounced on: 23.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Papendra Singh,
S/o Shri Rohitashwa Singh,
R/o Mahala Ki Dhani,
Titanwar Udaipurwati,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
Pin Code-333012.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters (New
Building), Behind Parliament
Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Deputy Director (Admin),
Delhi Police Academy,
Jharoda Kalan,
New Delhi-110077.
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
2
OA No.1815/2022
ORDER
R.N. Singh, Member (J):
Through the medium of this Original Application (OA), filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2022.
(b) Accord all consequential benefits.
(c) award costs of the proceedings.
(d) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police on 14.03.2022 as a direct recruit on the basis of the 2020 Examination. 2.1 After his appointment, he was directed to undergo basic training at Delhi Police Academy, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. He has completed more than 04 months of training out of 10 months.
3OA No.1815/2022 2.2 The respondents, however, vide order dated 07.07.2022 have terminated his services on the ground of concealment of fact of his involvement in a criminal case FIR no.591/2018 dated 15.10.2018 under Section 3/6 of Rajasthan Property Defacement Act, 2006, where he was fined for a sum of Rs.500/- therein.
2.3 It is alleged against the applicant that 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 12.01.2022 and furnished wrong information and concealed the facts of his involvement in the criminal case at initial state, which clearly reflects his malafide intention. 2.4 It is further stated in the impugned order that there was a clear mention in the attestation form that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be treated as a disqualification and would render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
4OA No.1815/2022 2.5 It is further submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature, as adverse finding has been recorded against the applicant. Moreover, as the said order has visited the applicant with civil consequences, he has been deprived of his employment and livelihood. As such, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue a show cause notice to him calling for his explanation before taking the adverse action. No show cause notice has been issued to him and he has been condemned unheard. No opportunity of hearing has been afforded to him and hence the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.
2.6 It is further submitted that the applicant was imposed a fine of Rs.500/- on 26.11.2018 and the case was thus closed and under a bonafide impression that as the matter was settled with a find of Rs.500/- the same does not require mention in the appointment related forms, he did not mention it in the attestation form.
5OA No.1815/2022 2.7 The applicant has further referred to Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Section 3 - Penalty for defacement of property (1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by defacing or spitting or urinating or pasting pamphlets, posters etc. or writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material or method except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable, in case of first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which shall not be less than one hundred rupees but which may extend to one thousand rupees or both and in case of each subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both."
2.8 A bare reading of the aforesaid penal provision would show that the offence is purely minor and trivial in nature and does not involve moral turpitude etc. Records of the conviction case have also been destroyed by the concerned Court as records of petty cases are not preserved for long by the trial court.
3. In support of the claim of the applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of 6 OA No.1815/2022 India & Ors., [(2016) 8 SCC 471]. He, in particular, referred to the observations made in para-38 of the judgment, which are reproduced below:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable 7 OA No.1815/2022 doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."8 OA No.1815/2022
3.1 The learned counsel would further contend that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) was further considered by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC
532. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 4 & 13 are reproduced below:
"4. That became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. It came on record that at one stage FIR no.75 under Sections 148/149/323/506/356 IPC was registered against him on 4 th April, 2011 and after chargesheet came to be filed on 13 th April, 2011, charge was framed on 7th July, 2011. As it was a false case registered against him, the appellant was honourably acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction by the judgment dated 12 th August, 2011 and this fact, according to the respondent, was not disclosed by him when he filled the attestation form on 27 th May, 2014 that he was prosecuted at one stage and this being a case of suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form, the High Court dismissed the writ petition under judgment impugned dated 17th November, 2015 and that became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before this Court.
xxx xxx xxx
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 9 OA No.1815/2022 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.
3.2 To further substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.8261-8262 of 2022, decided on 09.11.2022 and also a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahendra Solanki v. The Commissioner of Police & Anr., W.P. (C) No.2219/2023, decided on 10.03.2023.
3.3 The learned counsel would further contend that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in contravention of the settled position of law, as laid down in Avtar Singh (supra). He would urge that in spite of concealment of facts regarding involvement of the applicant in an FIR, the authority concerned, amongst the respondents, was required to apply objective criteria and consider all attending facts and circumstances 10 OA No.1815/2022 like age of applicant, nature of offence and his antecedents before passing an order of termination.
3.4 Keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel would contend that by mere suppression of material/false information, regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the applicant cannot be terminated from service axiomatically just by a stroke of pen. Simultaneously, 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.
3.5 The learned counsel would further contend that all matters cannot be put in a straightjacket and a degree of flexibility and 11 OA No.1815/2022 discretion vests with the authorities must be exercised with care and caution while taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of offence.
4. On the other hand, Shri Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicant and submitted that in this case there is no denial of knowledge of FIR by the applicant. He has deliberately concealed the information of registration of FIR against him from the respondents.
4.1 The learned counsel would further contend that the applicant has concealed this information twice, first at the time of filling up the application form and secondly while filling the attestation form where he has clearly stated that "I have not concealed any facts in the Application Form. I further declare that I have neither been involved in any criminal case nor been arrested/prosecuted/convicted/boutover/ interned/extended as well as not dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case. No 12 OA No.1815/2022 criminal case or court proceeding is pending against me at present. I do hereby also state that my selection to the post of Constable(Exe) Male/Female in Delhi Police is purely provisional and temporary, subject to the verification of my character & antecedents and the documents submitted by me in support with may Application Form. In case of any document/certificate/ declaration submitted by me is found to be false or adverse character & antecedents report is received, my aforesaid selection shall be liable to be cancelled and my services shall be liable to be terminated. Further, in the event of any eventuality mentioned above, I shall have no claim, for the post of Constable (Exe) Male/Female in Delhi Police., which shows his intention.
4.2 The learned counsel would contend that action against the applicant is initiated as per Standing Order No.398/2018 (now HRD/12/2002) of Delhi Police regarding 'Policy for deciding cases for provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police', who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases/acquittal/ 13 OA No.1815/2022 discharge etc. or concealed the same while furnishing information in attestation form for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents. Moreover, it was clearly mentioned in the offer of appointment issued to the applicant under serial no.03 of terms and conditions that the same is subject to verification of character & antecedents and if the report received from concerned authority is adverse, necessary action will be taken against him. As such the authorities after due application of mind and considering the report received from the concerned authority has terminated the services of the applicant vide impugned order dated 07.07.2022 which is legal and justified and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
4.3 To buttress his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i) P. Mohanasundarm v. Bar Council of India & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13807/2019 decided on 10.12.2021.14 OA No.1815/2022
ii) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No.20860 of 2019.
iii) Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, Civil Appeal No.2754 of 2022, decided on 05.04.2022.
4.4 The learned counsel would contend that the honesty and integrity of the applicant was questionable in view of suppression of material fact in respect of his criminal antecedents. As such the respondents did not commit any error in terminating his services.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through the case-laws relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
6. The position of law prior to Avtar Singh's case (supra) has also been referred to in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). The position of law and principles considered in various cases post Avtar Singh (supra) were also discussed in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) (i.e. Union 15 OA No.1815/2022 Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bunty, (2020) 17 SCC 654, State of Rajasthan and Others v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774, Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, Union of India (UOI) v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, (2022) 6 Scale 108, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696).
7. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the reasons to refer and look into various decisions of the Supreme Court arose over a period of time since the principles of law laid in Avtar Singh (supra) as governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Further, the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of 16 OA No.1815/2022 such nature were laid down in para 69 of the judgment and may be beneficially reproduced:
"69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)] b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?"
8. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for 17 OA No.1815/2022 appointment to the post and it would still be open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine if the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. It was also held that the suppression of material information and making a false declaration in the verification relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee and in case the employee had suppressed or given false information, he can be terminated. It was further laid down that the Court should inquire whether the authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted malafide or is there any element of bias in the decision of the authority and whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable.
9. It may also be observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) also took note of the judgment passed by the three Judge Bench in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 17 SCC 696 and the 18 OA No.1815/2022 observations in para 67 of the judgment are apt to be reproduced:
"67. Thus, this Court took the view that although employment opportunity is a scarce commodity in the present times being circumscribed within a limited vacancies yet by itself may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of a candidate may raise any question regarding his suitability, irrespective of eligibility. However, at the same time, this Court observed that there should not be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude to deny appointment in a government service simplicitor which would depend on the facts of each case. The judicial philosophy flowing through the mind of the judges is that every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life for self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, may not always constitute justice. It would all depend on the fact situation of the given case."
10. It is imperative to note that the aforesaid broad guidelines/conclusions referred in para 69 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra's case (supra) in no manner overrule the yardsticks as laid down in Avtar Singh's case (supra,) as reflected in para 38.1 to 38.11 above, which is a three Judge Bench judgment. The broad principles have been laid down considering the fact that different courts enunciated different principles over a period of time. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 31 in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra) are pertinent to be considered and may be reproduced as follows: 19 OA No.1815/2022
"31. Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such as stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects."
11. It is also imperative to point out that in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra), the appeal was directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upholding the order of discharge taking recourse to Clause 9(F) of the employment notice read with Rule 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In the aforesaid case, the FIR under Section 148/149/323/506/356/ IPC was registered against the appellant on 04.04.2011, the charge-sheet was filed on 13.04.2011 and the appellant was acquitted on 12.08.2011. The aforesaid facts were not disclosed by the 20 OA No.1815/2022 appellant when he filled the attestation form on 27.05.2014 with reference to the columns relating to his prosecution and was discharged from the service on 24.04.2015. The case was admittedly not pending when the process of selection was initiated vide employment notice dated 27.02.2011. The appellant therein also incorrectly disclosed the information with reference to the columns relating to arrest/prosecution and the attestation form also contained a warning that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under government. After considering the legal position laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) which was given by a three-Judge Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra) held in para 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 21 OA No.1815/2022 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."
12. It was further held that the Authority therein had not considered the scope and ambit of Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Post Rules, 1987 that after verification of the character/antecedents of the incumbent it will be an obligation upon the authority to examine as to whether the incumbent/recruit is suitable to become a member of the Force and without appreciation in a mechanical manner confirmed the order of discharge. It was also held that as observed in Avtar Singh's case (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the Authorities which must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of offence. The appellant was accordingly directed to be reinstated to the service on the post of Constable on which he was selected.
22OA No.1815/2022
13. It may also be pointed out that while referring to various cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a reference was also made in Avtar Singh (supra) to a three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp. SCC 795, which related to non disclosure of conviction in a case registered under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. The three Judge Bench in the aforesaid case held that non disclosure of aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the basis of which employment could have been denied and the person adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC.
14. We also notice that similar issue was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Namboothiri (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahendra Solanki (supra). The aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 23 OA No.1815/2022
15. In the light of aforesaid legal position, there cannot be any dispute that an applicant participating in the selection process is mandated to furnish the correct information in respect of character and antecedents in the requisite application form as well as attestation/verification form. In case the information is found to be suppressed, concealed or incorrectly declared and later on comes to the knowledge of the employer, appropriate recourse may be adopted by the employer in its discretion for cancelling the candidature or terminating the services of the employee. However, the exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity having regard to the facts in each case. The yardstick to be applied depends not only on the nature of the post, duties/services but as well as the nature of criminal involvement i.e. whether it is of trivial nature or otherwise. Even where the employee makes a truthful declaration on a concluded criminal case, the employer still has a right to consider the antecedents and the employer cannot be compelled to employ the candidate. 24 OA No.1815/2022
16. We are of the considered view that keeping in perspective the guidelines as laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), the competent authority, amongst the respondents, in the present case was also bound to consider the suitability of the petitioner having regard to the trivial nature of offence and the fact that the charges were neither grave nor involved moral turpitude, prior to terminating his services. The same is necessary to ensure that inquiry done by the Authority concerned is 'fair and reasonable' as contemplated even in Satish Chandra's case (supra). In the absence of said exercise being undertaken, the fact of suppression or concealment of involvement, even in trivial cases, would lead to automatic cancelling of candidature or termination of services, in violation of guidelines envisaged in para 38.4.1 as laid down in Avtar Singh's case (supra), referred to above.
17. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents should have considered and examined whether applicant is suitable and fit for appointment in view of his involvement in 25 OA No.1815/2022 criminal case, where he was fined for an amount of Rs.500/-. The inquiry as to the nature of involvement was required to be fairly conducted and the applicant should not have been automatically held unsuitable for appointment merely on the ground of concealment. The competent authority appears to have failed to consider and give due weight to the trivial nature of offence and was merely swept by the factum of non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in criminal case by the petitioner. The factual position in the present case is distinguishable from Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) since the appellant in said case had concealed the fact of involvement in criminal case under Section 147/323/324/ 504/506 IPC which was pending at the time of filling the verification form. Also, the second case referred in Satish Chandra Yadav, (supra) arising out of SLP (Civil) 5170 of 2021 filed by Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, was dismissed on similar grounds as a case under Section 147/149/323/325/504/506/307 IPC was pending against him as wrong information had been given in the verification form. On the other 26 OA No.1815/2022 hand, the factual position in present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra). The other decisions relied upon by the respondents P. Mohanasundaram and Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Kumar Mallick (supra) are also of no help, as the same are distinguishable on facts.
18. From the aforesaid it is evident that the claim of the applicant is supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar (supra) as also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahendra Solanki (supra).
19. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the respondents, terminating the services of the applicant, is quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be reinstated in service. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a 27 OA No.1815/2022 period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20. The OA stands allowed in the above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
21. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N.Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
'San.'