Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jai Singh S/O Sri Ranjeet Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi on 25 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3216/2010 This the 25th day of March 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Jai Singh s/o Sri Ranjeet Singh r/o Village & Post Lamba Gotra Teh Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri G S Rana) Versus 1. GNCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarter, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Dy. Commissioner of Police Recruitment, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri B.N.P. Pathak) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this O.A. thereby praying for quashing the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) by which the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police was cancelled. The applicant has also sought direction to the respondents to allow him to join the Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) from the date of his selection, with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement to fill up 6141 vacancies for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police, which was published in leading newspapers on 20.2.2009 and in the employment news on 7.3.2009. The applicant being one of the eligible candidates submitted an application form for the said post. He applied for the post and after qualifying the written test as well as physical test, he was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking documents etc. He was declared fit, but consequent upon the verification and character antecedents of the applicant, it was found that he was involved in criminal case FIR No.23/2006 under Sections 341/323/34 IPC, PS Bagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). However, the criminal case was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board/Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and the applicant was acquitted vide order dated 24.9.2007. Since the applicant did not disclose the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in the relevant column of application form and attestation form and concealed the facts deliberately despite clear warning at the top of the application form, the applicant was issued a show cause notice as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled and the applicant was directed to file reply within a period of 15 days (Annexure A-4). Pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice, the applicant submitted his representation wherein he stated that his name was not mentioned in the FIR No.23/2006, rather his name was added by the police officer mischievously when the challan / charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. PC was presented in the competent court. It is further stated that even the witnesses had not deposed against the applicant before the trial court, hence the Juvenile Court acquitted the applicant. In addition to what has been stated above, the applicant further stated that in terms of the provisions contained in 19 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, he cannot be held disqualified even after his clear acquittal. Copy of the reply so filed against the show cause notice is placed on record.
3. The respondents after considering the reply of the applicant have passed a detailed impugned order dated 21.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) and it was observed that the pleas put forth by the applicant in his reply have been considered and found not convincing. It is further stated that the applicant filled up the application form for the post of Constable (Executive) on 17.3.2009 and column 15 (a) to (e) of the application form requires criminal proceeding details but he put a tick mark as no in the relevant box and also left the column 16 of the said form blank, which requires to give full particulars of the case FIR No. Dated under Sections, Police Stations, District, and present Status of the Case at the time of filling-up this application form. While filling up the application form in column No.16 (kha), the applicant has mentioned that nahi, mere virudh koi FIR darj nahi hai and concealed the facts of involvement in the above said criminal case, despite clear warning given on the application and attestation form that furnishing of any false information or concealing any fact will be treated as disqualification. Based upon these reasoning, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled with immediate effect. Challenging the aforesaid action, the applicant has filed the present OA with aforementioned reliefs.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. The respondents have defended this case on the basis of reasoning given in the impugned order. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of the Honble High Court in Ex. Sepoy Sultan Singh v. Union of India & others (WP (C) No.11366/2006) whereby the Honble High Court has held as under:-
Where the applicant has concealed his involvement in a criminal case which he has committed while he was juvenile, has held that the services of the petitioner had been terminated not because of his involvement in a criminal prosecution but because of his incorrect answers to the questions contained in the attestation form.
5. Thus, according to the respondents, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Honble High Court in the aforesaid case.
6. The applicant has filed the rejoinder thereby reiterating the submissions made in the OA.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of provisions contained in Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2000, the involvement of the applicant in criminal case is of no consequence and the said fact cannot be taken to be a disqualification for any purpose whatsoever. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant. We are of the firm view that the applicant cannot take any assistance from Section 19 of the said Act inasmuch as the applicant has not been convicted by the Juvenile Court, rather he has been acquitted. Further, the candidature of the applicant has not been cancelled on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case but his candidature has been cancelled on the ground of suppression of material information relating to verification of character and antecedents. Thus, the reliance placed by the respondents to the judgment, referred to above, is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. That apart, the matter is also squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 SCC (L&S) 306 and subsequent decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Sukhen Chandra Das, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 911. Before adverting to these decisions of the Honble Apex Court, we may notice the relevant columns of the application form, which the applicant has filled up while applying for the aforesaid post and which has been annexed with the OA as Annexure A-4, i.e., page 32 of the paper book. The application form for the recruitment of Constable (Executive-Male) in Delhi Police contained a warning at the top of the form, which is to the following effect:-
Warning Furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the application form would be a disqualification for the job.
8. The applicant filled up the application form on 17.3.2009. The queries raised in columns 15 & 16 of the form and answer thereto, relevant for our purpose, are extracted below:-
SL.No. Query Answer 15 (a) Whether any FIR or criminal case has ever been registered against you No
(b) Whether any FIR or criminal case is pending against you in any Court of Law, or with police at the time of submitting the application present? No
(c) Have you ever been arrested or detained in any criminal case(s)? No
(d) Have you ever been tried & convicted by a Court of Law in any criminal case(s)? No
(e) Have you ever been tried and convicted by the court by filling any bond for good behavior etc. No
16. Case Reference: If the answer to any of the above mentioned questions is Yes then give full particulars of the case FIR No. Dated Under Sections, Police Stations, District, and Present Status of the Case at time of filling-up this application form Blank
9. The form also required the applicant to give declaration, which reads as under:-
18. Declaration: I hereby declare and confirm that all the entries in this application are correct. I undertake that, in case any information furnished by me is found to be false or material information concealed by me, my candidature may be cancelled at all my claims for the recruitment will stand forfeited.
10. As can be seen from the impugned order, in the attestation form for verification and character antecedents filled on 15.10.2009 against column 11 (kha) of the said attestation form, the applicant has mentioned nahi, mere virudh koi FIR darj nahi hai, although the said form has not been placed on record. Further, the impugned order also reveals that the attestation form also contained the similar warning as in the application form to the effect that furnishing of false information or concealing any fact in the application will be treated as disqualification.
11. It may be stated that in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), the respondent therein submitted an attestation form dated 26.6.1998, wherein he answered two of the queries thus:
"12. Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence? - 'No' ;
13. Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? - 'No'."
On the said attestation form being referred for verification, it was found that the information furnished by him was false and that a criminal case under section 323, 341, 294 and 506-B read with section 34 IPC was pending against him. He was therefore terminated from service, by the Sangathan, by memorandum dated 7.4.1999/8.4.1999, as being unfit for employment. The Tribunal upheld the termination. The High Court set aside his termination on the ground that the criminal case against him was subsequently withdrawn by the Government and the offences alleged did not involve any moral turpitude so as to disqualify him for employment. The said decision was reversed by the Honble Apex Court.
12. The Honble Apex Court has also held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information under clauses 12 and 13 of the attestation form was to assess his character and antecedents for continuation in service; that suppres-sion of material information and making a false statement in reply to queries (12) and (13) had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of a person employed as a teacher in a school; and therefore the employer was justified in termi-nating his service during the period of probation. The Honble Apex Court did not accept Yadav's claim that he did not understand the contents of the questions which were in En-glish, as it found that the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact, after; examination of the record, that Yadav was highly qualified and was aware of the significance and meaning of the said queries, and had deliberately entered false responses.
13. It was also pointed out by the Honble Apex Court that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who sup-presses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer.
14. Therefore, the ratio decidendi of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) is where an employee (probationer) is required to give his personal data in an attestation form in connec-tion with his appointment (either at the time of or thereafter), if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from ser-vice during the period of probation without holding any inquiry.
15. Thus, in view of the law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), the services of an employee can be terminated on ground of suppression of material information regarding verification of character and antecedents and nature of gravity of offence and ultimately result of the criminal case is not the relevant consideration. According to us, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadavs case (supra). Similar view was also taken by the Honble Apex Court in Sukhen Chandra Dass case (supra), which was a case where the services of the respondent before the Honble Apex Court were terminated under the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 when factum of pendency of case came to the notice of the Department at the time of verification of character antecedents. It may be stated that Sukhen Chandra Das furnished wrong information in the form relating to verification of character and antecedents, despite warning given in the form itself that wrong information would result in termination of service. The respondent therein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, who vide order dated 1.8.2001 held that the order of termination of the respondent was passed on alleged misconduct and the same could not be treated as an order simpliciter covered by the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the respondent, however, reserved liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent for alleged misconduct. The writ petition filed before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. As such, the matter was carried to the Honble Apex Court and the Apex Court relying upon the clause 1.12 (a) of Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment Manual, 1975 as well as sub-para (d) of the said Manual, 1975, which prescribed, if a person is adversely reported upon in the attestation form by the local authorities, his services will be terminated by giving him one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof under CRPF Rule 16 read with Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, held that services of such employee could have been terminated as per the provisions contained under CRPF Rule 16 read Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 even without issuing the show cause notice.
16. We may also notice another decision of the Honble Apex Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & others v. Sushil Kumar, 1997 SCC (L&S) 492, although it is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the candidature of the applicant herein has been cancelled on account of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application form as well as in the attestation form. The Honble Apex Court in the said case has held that the discharge of acquittal of a person under criminal offence has nothing to do with denial of appointment to him on the ground of undesirability based upon the antecedents of candidates. That was not a case of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application/attestation form but was a case where the appointment was denied to the respondent before the Honble Apex Court on account of his antecedents record where he was involved in a criminal case but acquitted by the competent court. That was a case where the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, he filed OA in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The Honble Apex Court held that though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.
17. Thus, viewing the matter from the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for our interference. The OA is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/