Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri M.L. Chauhan:

The applicant has filed this O.A. thereby praying for quashing the impugned order dated 22.7.2010 (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 re-habilitate him in the matter of public employment.

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. 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.93/1992 under Sections 447/341 IPC, PS Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). However, the criminal case was decided by the Court and the applicant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC but he was let-off vide order dated 30.1.1993 by giving benefit under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 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. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the applicant submitted reply dated 8.3.2009 stating that the case was registered in the year 1992 in which he was acquitted by the Court. He further stated that after the acquittal in the said case, he had joined Indian Army on 28.6.1994 but he forgot to tick the appropriate column and did not give the details of the case and regretted for not mentioning the facts.

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.

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.