Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh Yadav vs Union Of India & Another on 14 December, 2010
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. COURT NO. 32 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2006 Surendra Singh Yadav Versus Union of India and another -------- Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2006, passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, sitting singly, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39526 of 1998 (Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Another).
The judgment aforesaid is assailed on the ground that there is no statutory format prescribed for submitting an application for appointment to the post of Constable (Recruit). It is also stated that the petitioner-appellant had actually been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 458 of 1997, under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. P.S. Saidpur, District Ghazipur, hence any omission in furnishing his antecedents in the verification roll in the application form could not have been a ground for dismissing the appellant from service. It is also stated that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice in the writ petition the judgment dated 24.09.1999, passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Garg in C.M.W.P. No. 4591 of 1999 in re: Anuj Kumar Vs. D.I.G. Karmik, PHQ & Others and the judgment dated 28.01.2004, passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwar Singh in C.M.W.P. No. 3045 (S/S) of 2003 in re: Udai Vir Singh Vs. Union of India & Others. Copies of these judgments have been appended along with this special appeal.
It is lastly submitted that the impugned judgment has the effect on fundamental rights of the petitioner-appellant. The impugned judgment and order could not have been passed without issuing any show cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-appellant. Principles of natural justice has not been followed while passing the impugned judgment and order. The termination order of the petitioner-appellant was liable to be quashed by the learned Single Judge.
We have heard Shri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Ms. Rashmi Tripahi, learned counsel appearing for Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi (respondent No.1) at length and have perused the record.
It appears while submitting the application form for the post of Constable (Recruit), a candidate has to fill in a verification roll as required under Rule 12 (b) of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules). This verification roll was also appended as Annexure No. C.A.1 to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. The verification signed by the petitioner-appellant reads thus:-
"WARNING :
The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll will be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the information should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to which the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information.
If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.
........................
12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or 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 taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution?
(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll?
If answer to (a) or (b) is ''Yes' then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form.
..............
Please also see the ''Warning' at the top of this Verification Roll.
...............
I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under Government.
............Signature of the Candidate"
It further appears that the character and antecedents of the petitioner-appellant had been got verified through the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, as required under Rule 12 (b) of the CRPF Rules, who by his letter dated 20th August, 1998 forwarded the report of the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur which mentioned that Criminal Case No. 458 of 1997, under Sections 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner-appellant in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.
On receipt of the information, the temporary services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated under the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules read with Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, which is under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that no format was provided for being filled in, by the candidate for the post of Constable (Recruit), giving his antecedents.
We also find from the perusal of the impugned judgment that His Lordship had concluded that, as the petitioner was a temporary employee, his services could have been terminated at any time in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules. There was no requirement of hearing to the petitioner-appellant before terminating his services, as he had come into service by suppression of material facts and he had been found guilty of suppression of the material fact regarding his antecedents, which he had provided and had also signed a declaration in the verification roll in this regard.
To our mind, the principles of natural justice apply where a candidate comes with clean hands in service and there is no injustice or prejudice caused to the petitioner-appellant by any action of the authority.
In the instant case, no prejudice have been pleaded. Rather from perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner-appellant could get selected as Trainee/Recruit Constable by concealment of the material fact or deliberate misrepresentation.
It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned judgment and order that the petitioner-appellant had been recruited or had come in training in April, 1998 and that the criminal case which was pending against him was decided on 23.05.1998, i.e., much after his appointment as Constable (Recruit). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner-appellant to have declared his antecedents in the verification roll, as quoted above. CRPF is a disciplined force and, therefore, the antecedents of a candidate have a vital role in recruitment.
In so far as the two judgments in Anuj Kumar (Supra) and Udai Vir Singh (Supra) are concerned, on the basis of which impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is being challenged in appeal were neither cited, nor submissions were made in this regard before their Lordships and, in any case, those cases have not been shown to us to be applicable to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, however, notice that even otherwise also the ratio laid in those judgments is no longer good law in view of subsequent judgments of the Apex Court in Ramchandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 319; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, 2004 (6) SCC 325; Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 690; and Lillykutty Vs. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST and Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 283;.
For all these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14.12.2010 AKSI