Gugan Singh v. Director General, CRPF & Ors

Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate CORAM :- * THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). At the time of making application for recruitment to the said post, he did not inform the respondents that there was a criminal case pending against him under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC. It is not in dispute that there was a specific column in the application for giving such an information about the involvement of the applicant in a criminal case. The respondents came to know of the pendency of such a case when verification of the petitioners antecedents was made by requesting Superintendent of Police, Rohtak (Haryana). The petitioner was still a temporary employee and, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) WP (C) No. 5213/2000 nsk Rules, 1965 his services were terminated vide order dated

22.1.2000. The petitioner submitted appeal there against, which was also dismissed by the DIG, CRPF on 22.2.2000. Thereafter, revision petition was filed, which met the same fate as it came to be rejected on 11.4.2000. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid termination order and subsequent affirmation by the higher authorities.

2. The aforesaid factual matrix is not in dispute. The nature of concealment of the pendency of case is reflected in para 3 of the order dated 11.4.2000 passed in appeal, which can be reproduced for our benefit :- From the history of the case and parawise “3. comments on the appeal received from ADIGP GC CRPF J/Kalan New Delhi, and the DIGP CRPF New Delhi, it has revealed that the appellant was appointed as Constable (GD) against the strength of GC (CRPF) New Delhi wef 10/09/98 and he was despatched to RTC-III, Pallipuram (Kerala) for basic training on 4.10.98. Subsequently, a complaint was received to the effect that a criminal case was pending against the appellant in the Court of CJM Rohtak. Since, the mention about pendency of any such criminal case was not made by the appellant against the prescribed column, i.e., column No. 12(b) in Verification Roll, GC New Delhi, requested SP Rohtak (Haryana) to verify and forward report on the issue. In reply, vide letter No. 20902/S dated 27.12.99, SP Rohtak (Haryana) confirmed that case No. 181 dated 23.8.94 U/s. 148/149/323/325/506, I.P.C. is still pending in the court of CJM, Rohtak. Since, the appellant supressed the aforesaid information while filling the verification Roll ignoring the warning quoted in the beginning of verification Roll, he was considered un-suitable for employment in CRPF. Since he was a purely temporary Govt. Servant, his services were terminated by the ADIGP GC New Delhi, without assigning any reasons under provision of Rule 5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules 1965 vide O/O No. D.V-1/2000-EC-V dated 22nd Jan'2000 with one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice.”

3. The question is as to whether the impugned termination order can be faulted with even when it is an accepted position that the WP (C) No. 5213/2000 nsk petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the said case while submitting the application and to that extent he had misrepresented and/or concealed the said fact.

4. This issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (A.K. Sikri, J.) was a member, in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar {WP (C) No. 8385/2002 decided on 20.12.2007} and taking note of certain judgments the position in law was summarised in para 11 of the said judgment in the following terms :- “11. We may remark here that where the case is pending at the time of filling up of the form, position would be different and in case a candidate conceals such an information or provides wrong information, the candidature or even the appointment can be cancelled {See – Sanjay Kumar Bajpai v. Union of India, 1997 II AD SC 704}. Similarly, where the prosecution, though resulted in acquittal, was for an offence which otherwise involves moral turpitude, it may be necessary to mention particulars of such a case as that may be a relevant consideration to adjudge the conduct or character of a candidate to be appointed to a service even when such a prosecution resulted in acquittal, inasmuch as, it would provide information about the Delhi antecedents of the candidate {See – Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, JT 1996 (10) SC 34}. However, where the offence with which the candidate was charged was petty offence not involving moral turpitude and it has resulted in acquittal as well and going by the petty nature of the offence if such a factor is not material enough to deny appointment to a candidate, non- disclosure thereof shall not be a ground to terminate his services.”

5. In the present case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC, which would definitely involve moral turpitude. Bound by the legal dictum, as laid down by the Apex Court and noted in the aforesaid judgment, we are not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as the obligation of the petitioner to disclose the aforesaid information is concerned. WP (C) No. 5213/2000 nsk

6. We may note that this Court has been taking the aforesaid view consistently and some of the judgments which were cited by learned counsel for the respondents on this aspect are the following :- i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) Harender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 12219/2004 decided on 4.8.2004 Anil v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 8257/2003 decided on 16.11.2007 Bhagat Singh Pal v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 1229/1994 decided on 15.10.2004 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 2 SLR 602 Yogesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 11460/2004 decided on 19.10.2006 Mathura Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) DBCSA (Writ) No. 404/2004 decided on 10.5.2006 Harnarain v. Union of India WP (C) No. 1446/2003 decided on 12.12.2007 Leela Ram Saini v. Union of India & Ors. WP (C) No. 2571/1991 decided on 25.5.2006

7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed. No costs. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (J.M. MALIK) JUDGE January 28, 2008 WP (C) No. 5213/2000 nsk