Vikas Kumar Minj S/o Shri Nirantar Minj, Aged About 22 Years Occupation Ex Constable v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3590 of 2016 Vikas Kumar Minj S/o Shri Nirantar Minj, Aged About 22 Years Occupation Ex Constable Trade Man Va. Ke. 933, In The Office Of 9th Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force Karli, Dantewada Chhattisgarh, R/o Police Lines Urdana, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Police Head Quarter, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commandant, 9th Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force Karli, Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
“The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a vieur to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief: if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13. he could not certify so. 6 Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 held in paragraph 14 is as under : "14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, ie., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.” 10. There is no dispute to the fact that a criminal case was registered under Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 376(घ), 343, 307, 34 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No. 121/2014 at Police Station- Jashpur (C.G.). The application form submitted by the petitioner Annexure R/4 clearly indicates that a caution was given to the applicant that if any false information was given, his services would be terminated. In the relevant clause of form, the petitioner has mentioned that he 7 has not been prosecuted. Apart from this, an affidavit was also sworn by the petitioner specifically indicating that no case in registered in any police station in India. Relying upon these facts, his service was terminated by the respondent No.4 and appeal was dismissed by respondent No.3. 11. The relationship between an employee and employer is of trust and faith. If the trust and faith of the employer is broken by the employee, the employer has right to take appropriate action against the employee. If the criminal antecedent is brought to the notice of the employer, it can take a decision with regard to suitability of the candidate for employment. The case in hand clearly indicates that despite of having knowledge of the fact that an offence was registered against the petitioner. He was tried for it and ultimately acquitted has been suppressed by the petitioner not only while submitting the verification form but also giving an affidavit in this regard. Therefore, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra), Avtar Singh (supra), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) in the
Arguments
: Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 19.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming the reliefs as under:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned order dated-05-06-2015, Order No. 9th, Bata./CAF/Dante./Stha/F1/Cha.Sa. 522 D, Passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure P-1) /or/ Respondents my kindly be directed to decide the petitioner's representations on merits within stipulated time. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted. 2. The brief facts of the case is that vide order dated 23.01.2015 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable Trade Man (Water Carrier) with the 2 respondent No.4 thereafter on police verification it was found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated 05.06.2015 Annexure P/1 against which a departmental appeal was preferred before the Inspector General of Police Respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2015 Annexure P/4. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner interalia pleading that before the appointment of the petitioner, he was already acquitted from the criminal case and would have not caused any prejudice to the respondents, therefore, the reliefs as claimed may granted. 4. Return has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated indicating therein that the petitioner suppress the fact of registration of a criminal case against him while filing-up the form wherein a caution was made that if any false information is given in the form, the services of the applicant could be terminated. An affidavit was also submitted by the petitioner in which it has been categorically stated that by him that no case is registered in any police station of India. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake is bonafide on the part of the petitioner. He perhaps might have misunderstood the fact as he was already acquitted there is no requirement to submit the said information. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submission and submits that the petitioner has submitted suppress the material facts and gave false information, therefore, his service was terminated which is in accordance with law. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact of non-disclosure of criminal case pending/decided against the employee fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 has held in paragraph 38 which is quoted below : “38. 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 of offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may 4 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 canceling 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. In a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon various earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others' 2022 SCC Online SC 1300 dismissed the appeal of 5 the employee who has suppressed the material fact of criminal antecedent during probation. In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437 Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 held as under :-
Decision
opinion of this Court, the writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.02.21 17:01:21 +0530 H.Ansari Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge