Writ Petition No. 17589 of 2022 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan

Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2 The oetiti onera DDT oa ch ed th e Court see kin o prayer as under: "...to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.11/2O21-AS.-7, dt.t7.O3.2022 confirming the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in Proceedings No. R.XUI-01/2015- Estt-3, dt.05.02.2015 and the Proceedings issued by the Disciplinary Authority's Vide Proc.No. D.IX- 4/2Ol4EC-lt/141, dt. -LO-2O14 and set aside the same by holding it absolutely illegal arbitrary and unconstitutiona I and violative of the statutory rules and premature and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to duty to the post of constable 7 I I I I I I l sN,J w.P.No.17589 of 2022 with all consequential benefits including areas of salary, seniority and service benefits in the interest of justice and pass..."

3. The case of the Detitio ner. in brief. as oer the averments made in the affi davit filed bv ttr e oetitioner in suoport of the present Writ Petition is as under: i) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CRPF on 13.06.2011 after successfully clearing the selection process. In an earlier recruitment held in 2009, although the petitioner had been selected, the entire recruitment process was cancelled due to malpractices committed by other ca ndidates. ii) Although the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR registered in 2009, it was later inclurled in the charge sheet filed in 2011. The petitioner became aware of this only upon receiving court summons in Auqust 2013, after which bail was obtained. Therefore, at the time of filling the verification form in 2011, the petitioner had no knowledge of the charge sheet filed against him. ;l ( , SN,J W.P,No.175a9 ot 2022 iii) A charge memo was issued to the petitioner in 2014 alleging suppression of facts, which led to his removal from service and the order of removal was upheld in appeal in

2015. The writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Patna High Court was disposed of with liberty to avail an alternate remedy, subsequently, the petitioner filed the revision petition dated 10.11.2021 against the order dated

05.02.2015 before the lst respondent and the same was dismissed on 11.03.2022 confirming the petitioner's removal from service. The charges are baseless, as the name oF the petitioner was not in the FIR and the petitioner was unaware of the charge sheet while submitting the verification form, and that disciplinary proceedings during pendency of the criminal trial are arbitrary and contrary to CRPF Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The relevant portion at para '7' of the impuqned order vide Memorandum No.efRotra- r 1 / 20 2 l-trg(r{T- 4 SN,J W.P.No.17589 of 2022 g{IT-7 dated 11.O3.2022 iss ued bv th e resoondent No.1 to the petitioner herein is extracted .lrereunder: *7. I have considered the Revision Petition dated 1O/1L12021 submitted by the Petitioner and in view of the foregoing discussions, it is found that the Petitioner suppressed his involvement in the aforesaid CBI case arrd hence the Disciplinary Authority has exercised judicious caul on and rightly awarded the punishment of "Removal from Servii:e". Moreover, the Appellate Authority has also exercised due caution in affirming ihe orders of Disciplinary Authoi'ity. Hence, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is justified and commensurate with the gravity of offence commitled by him. By virtue of powers vested in me under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules, 1955, I find no cogent reason to interfere with the Order No. D.IX.4/2014-Estt.II 141 dated 04/LO/2014 of Commandant, l4l Bn, CR.PF and Order No.R.XIII.1/2015-Esst-3 dated 05/02/2015 of DIGP, Range Hqr., CRPF, Hyderabad (TS) and hence upheld the punishment awarded to No.115205779 Ex- CTIGD Rajesh Kumar of 141 Bn, CRPF by the Disciplinary Authority and orders of Appellate Authority and reject the Revision Petition being devoid of merit." B) The relevant portion of the imouqned order vide No.R.Xl-tI-O1/201s-Estt-3 dated O5.O2.2011; issued bv the resporrdent No.2-the DeDutv Inspector General of Police C.llPF Ranoe. Hvdera bad to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: "...5) No procedural irregularity is noticed in the conduct of enquiry as well the final orders passed by disciplinary authority removing the appellant from service. The appellant has not produced any valid docu me nts/l ustifia ble reasons in his appeal to substantiate his request for reinstatement in service. r l SN,J w.P.No.17589 of 2022 Further the appellant did not submit any material worth considering in his appeal. Therefore, by virtue of powers vested upon the appellate authority under Rule-28 of CRPF Rules. 1955, I reject this appeal being devoid of merit.

6. The appellant is at liberty to file revision petition, if need be, before the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, MP & MLA Colony, Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad - 500 033 as provided under Rule-29 of CRPF Rules, 1955 and the petition should be submitted through the Commandant-141 Bn, CRPF within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order..." c) TJra ral arrr rrt nllr+ of the im rlttat nadn r tlc r rri dp No.D.IX-4l2OL4-EC-[I / L4L dated O4.10.2O14 issued the res n n N h t-141 BN (.l/n Tha l.nmnrandr nt-141 BN C .R.P.F. Detitioner herein is extracted hereunder: "...11. The delinquent admitted the fact that he appeared for the post of constable/GD in the year 2009 at Begusarai and cleared all the tests and consequently placed on merit list. However, the recruitment got cancelled for reasons not known to him. He joined CRPF on 13.06.2011 at GC Muzaffarpur and submitted relevant documents pertaining to caste, nativity, and character. He further stated that he filled the character and verification roll but did not mention anything about FIR being lodged or charge sheet being issued against him, because he was not aware of such thing at that time ((ie.) 16.08.2011). He knew about the summons issued by CBI court through his father during his presence at home in Earned leave from 15.12.2012 to 15.01.2013. He went to the nearest police station and found that FIR was not registered against his name. I I i I I 6 5N,J W.P,No.17589 of 2022

12. I have gone through the written applir:ation dated 16109/20L4 in respect of the individual and departmental enquiry proceedings. The ch;rge framed against the delinquent have been proved. As per charge tlre delinquent has suppressed fact as he dic not inform the department about this criminal case, which is manclatory for his Govt. service. The matter regarding involvement in FIR No. RC 01 (A)/O9/ACU-IX) on 01.05.2009 was under consideration by i[e Hon'ble court. The DE was held strictly as per the laid down procedure and the delinquent was afforded adequate opportunity to defend his side. Though the matter is subjudice the delinquent cannot be absolved of his duty to furnish correct information to the department, which he has failed to do. I find him guilty on the clarge as it is highly improbable to believe that delinquent was not aware of the FIR and charge sheet filed agaixst him at the time of filling the character and verificatron roll on 16.08.2011. The FIR was lodged on 01.05.2009 and charge sheet was filed on 30.06.2011. CBI investigated the case for 02 long years and after gathering material evidence filed the charge sheet. It is not possible to believe that a premier investigation agency like CBI filed charge sheet without questioning him and that too without credible evidence. The delinquent himself admitted the fact in response to question No. 13 that CBi had visited his house towards the end of 2009 and left after questioning. Though the delinquent was believed to have been in Kolkata during that time, jn response to question No. 14 he said he didn't mention anything in character and verification roll about CBI visiting his house and questioning family members because he was not aware of that. This shows inconsistency in the statement of the delinquent. More so it casts doubts on the veracity of his statements simply because as quoted by him in response to question No. 15 he didn't try to get further information from CBI with regard to reason for which CBI visited his home. This casts serious doubts on the credence of defence t.aken by the delinquent... " --.'4 t 1 SN,J W.P.No.17589 of 2()22 D) The relevant Dortion of e crlll n ter affid avit filed on behalf of the res n ln artic h Nos.13 and 21 are extracted hereunder: ".....In that case, FIR No. RC 01(A)/2009/CBI-ACU-IX was lodged on L/5/2009 and after investigation, the CBI has filed charge sheet on 30/6/20tl against 28 accused including the petitioner, who was shown as accused no.28. The contention of the petitioner is that he has no knowledge about his implication in the case till serving of summon to him on 13/8/2013, is not tenable and false, In fact the character and veriFication roll was filled by the petitioner on 76/8/2071,1.e., after lodging FIR and Charge Sheet. It means the CBI investigated the case for 02 years and after gathering material evidence, filed the charge sheet.

21. Assuming but not admitting that even after filing of the charge sheet by the cBI, the petitioner, came to know only on 13.08.2013 i.e., according to his knowledge, but thereafter the petitioner did not choose to apprise the respondents about the contents of the FIR or Charge sheet, the petitioner kept quiet till it was known to the respondents, which is also a suppression of fact."

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner submits that, in view of the summons issued by the CBI Court through the petitioner's father while the petitioner was at home on earned leave from L5.02.2012 to

15.01.2013, the petitioner went to the nearest police station to inquire about the summons issued by the CBI Court and 8 SN,J W.P.No.17589 of 2022 found that no FIR had been registered against the petitioner in any of the local police stations during that period. As on the date when the petitioner filled the verificaticn form, i.e.,

16.08.2011, no FIR had been registered against the petitioner in any police station and as the petitirlner was not involved in any act that would warrant the issuance oF the impugned orders against the petitioner. The impugned order and consequential orders against the petitioner need to be set a side.

6. A bare perusal of the article of charge framed against the petitioner dated 13.05.2014 clearly indicates that while filling the verification form on 16.08.2011, the petitioner did not mention the FIR lodged against him on 01.05.2009, in which the petitioner was shown as one of the accused in a recruitment scam. Subsequently, on 30.06.2011, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the CBI, which was also not disclosed in the verification form. Therefore, by failing to disclose this vital information while filling the verification form on 16.08.2011, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in suppression of Facts, which amounts to 9 SN,J W.P,No.17589 of 2O22 indiscipline in the force and is punishable under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was serving as a Constable (GD), a charge memo dated 13.05.2014 was issued framing a speciFic charge that, while filling up the verification form on 16.08.2011, the petitioner failed to disclose the FIR lodged against him on 01.05.2009, in which the petitioner was shown as one of the accused in a recruitment scam. It was further alleged that the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the CBI vide F.I.R.No.Rc.01(A)/o9/ACU-IX on

30.06.2011, and this fact was also not disclosed in the verification form dated 16.08.2011. The non-disclosure of such vital information was treated as suppression of facts, punishable under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations, however, an order vide No.D.IX-4l2014- EC.lI/t41 dated 04.10.2014 was issued to the petitioner imposing the punishment of removal from service, which is referred in the impugned undated order of October 2014. l0 sN,l w.P.No.17589 of 2022 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was mechanically rejected vide No.R.XIIi-01/2015-Estt-3 on 05.02.2015. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before respondent No.1, which was also dismissed, confirming the appellate order, vide No. 3{Rof{d- 1 1/20 2 1 -qqqg-qqTi- 7 dated I t .03.2022.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that, as on the date when t're petitioner filled the character verification form, i.e., on 16.08.2011, the petitioner was not aware about the FIR No.01/2009 dated 01.05.2009 which had been lodged against him or that a charge sheet had been issued. Hence, the petitioner could not have disclosed the same in the verifi.ation form, as the petitioner had no knowledge of it at that t me.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the counter affid,:vit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that if we assume that the petitioner became aware of the charge sheet filed by CBI only on 13.08.2013 even after that knor,r,ledge, the I I} sN,J W.P.No,175a9 of 2022 petitioner did not appraise the respondents about the same and remained silent till the respondents came to know about the above said charge sheet and the same amounts to suppression of facts as stated at paragraph 21 of the counter aFfidavit and hence petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

10. A bare oerusal of the record indicates that on O1.O5.2OO9, an FIR was reqistered aoainst elqht individuals, and the oetitioner's name was not included. In 2OO9, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable and, after passinq the written and phvsical tests, petitioner was appointed as Constable on 13.O6.2011. The peti ioner underwent traininq from 13.O6.2011 to 22.04.2O11 and from 25.O8.2011 to 15.11.2O12. On 16.08 .ZOLL. the oetitioner filled out the verification form, and as on that date, the etitioner w not i 11 CBI file h petitioner as an accused. On 25,O1,2O1 , the Soecial Judoe, CBL took coqnizance of the offences. and ! l2 sN.J w-P.No.17589 of 2022 summons were issued to the acc used or O2.O3.2OI2. which ,,ere served on the D etitioner on 13.O8.2013. Subseouentlv, on 13.O5.2 OL4. a charoe memo was s d n r !t re !;l n of facts and oLr 04.1O.2O14 vide No.D.IX-4l2O1.|-EC-LLl74t, the petitioner u/as removed from service.

11. A bare perusal oF the copy of th€) FIR dated

01.05.2009, filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, along y/ith the list of accused enclosed as a supporting document, also as borne on record, does not indicate the petitioner's name and the same supports the petitioner's speciFic plea that the petitioner was:rot aware oF the charge sheet filed against the petitioner at that time. In fact, the character and veriFication form was filled by the petitioner on 16.08.2011, as borne on record. L2. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that even after the petitioner became aware of the same in August 2O13, the petitioner remained silent and did *t'"' E '-' , i I I I 1i SN,J W.P.No.17589 of 2022 not inform the respondents, which amounts to I suppression of facts as averred in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, this Court opines that such plea is untenable and is hereby rejected. As per the charge framed against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 13.05.2OL4, the specific allegation was that when the petitioner filled the verification form on

16.08.2011, the petitioner did not mention about the FIR lodged against him on 01.05.2009 but fact remains that as on the said date no FIR had been infact registered against the petitioner. This Court observes that the impugned order of removal from service was a punishment awarded in a mechanical and hasty manner, prejudging the issue. The appellate authority, vide Order No.R.XIII-O1/2015-Estt-3dated

05.02.2015, upheld the order of removal in a routine manner, without any independent application of mind and the revisional authoraty, i.e., the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector HQ & CRPF, MP & MLA Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, also reiterated the same. This Court opines that no action can be I I I I l,i SN,J w.P. No.17589 of 2022 taken against the petitioner on the basis of suppression or submitting false informal:ion as to a fact which was not even asked for from the petitioner after 16.O8.2O11, since as on 16.O8.2011. when the petitioner filed the verification Form, no FIR had been in fact registered against the petitioner and subsequently either in August 2013 or at any point of time any s;uch information was called for or asked for from the petitioner herein, by the official rr:spondents herein.

13. Therefore, this Court opines that the respondents proceeded agaanst the petitioner without following the due procedure contemplated under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, prejudging the issue by assuming that the petitioner had knowleclge of the FIR at the time of filling the verification fornr which is wholly contrary to the record and without any basis. Since this assumption formed the sole basis for issuing the impugned removal proceedings, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 04.10"2O14 and -{' I l5 sN,J w.P,No.17569 0f 2022 the consequential orders being routine and mechanical orders passed without considering the specific plea of the petitioner that petitioner became aware of case registered against the petitioner only upon petitioner receiving the court summons in August 2013 as illegal and arbitrary. L4. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in an identical issue in "State of West Benqal Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana" reported in AIR online 2023 SC 884 at DaraqraDh No,g, 10, 11 an 38.1O observed as under: "9. In the facts of the case, the other objection raised by the appellant is related to suppression of material information in the verification roll. For analysing the sustainability of the said objection, the language used to ask information in Column No.12 of verification roll may be relevant and for ready reference. it is reproduced as under; "Have you been arrested, detained or convicted by a court of any offence if the answer is 'yes' the full particulars of the Arrest or detention or conviction and the sentence should be given. Answer: No"

10. Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in the above column indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any offence. In case the answer was'yes', then full particulars of the arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply 16 sN,l W.P.No.17589 of 2022 to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as "no". As per the contents of the inFormation sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case. Thereforef supply of such information by the respondent does not fall within the expression 'suppression of material informa:ion'. This Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of B. Chinnam Naidu (supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein below - "9. ...The State Government and the Tribunal appea'ed to have proceeded on the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column 1.1 of the attestation form did not require such information being furnished. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an attcstation form. We find no reason to accept such contention. There was no specific requirerent to mention as to whether any case is pendlng or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific language so far as column 12 is concer"led the respondent cannot be found guilty of any suppr':ssion." 11. In the above case, the Court has distinguished the judgment of "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437", on the pretext that the details of information sought in the verification roll ,n said case was different. In the facts of the present case, the informatioir sought from the respondent in the verification form was vague. Similar was the position in the case of Chinnan] Naidu (supra). Therefore, the said judgment squarely applies in the facts of this case. Though in the sa d case, finding regarding desirability for appointmen: of a person in government service was not decided because it was not the subject matter.

38.10 For determining suppression oi- false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information whrch 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 t1 SN,J W.P.No.l7589 of 2022 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 f or."

15. This Court opines that the petitioner did not commit any illegality and furnished all the information that was specifically called for in the verification form and accordingly disclosed the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of suppressing information that was not even sought for from the petitioner. The speciFic charge alleging that the petitioner did not disclose the FIR registered against him on 01.05.2009 in the verification form dated 16.08.2011 is contrary to the record, since no FIR had been registered against the petitioner at that point of time on the said date i.e.,01.05.2009. Accordingly, this Court opines that no suppression has been proved against the petitioner as alleged by the respondents in the impugned orders.

16. TAKING INTO CONSIDE TION: I l8 sN,l W.P.No.17589 of 2022 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the ca se, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on trehalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above), d) The contents of the impugned order vide proceedings l"lo.ofRotl6- 11/2021-qgqfl-gql1-7, dt.11.03.2022 of the respondent No.1 issrred to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), e) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgment (referred to and extracted above), The writ oetition is allowed settino aside the impuqned order vide proceedings No.3{Rofr{6- l9 sN,l W.P.No.175a9 of 2022 11l2021-gggfr-q{Tt-7 dt.11.03.2022 confirmino the orders oassed bv the Aooellate Authoritv in Proceedinqs No. R.XIII-O1 /2O1 5-Estt-3, dt.O5.O2.2O1 5 and the Proceedinqs issued bv the Disciolinarv Authoritv's Vide Proceedinqs No. D.IX-4/2O14EC- LL/14L, dated O4-7O-2OL4. The resoondents are directed to reinstate the D titioner to dutv to the post of Constable with all con eouential benefits as Der petitioner's leqal entitlement in accordance to law within two (O2) weeks from the date of receiot of the coov of the order. Howeve r, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The lnspector General of Police, CRPF South Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, U nion of lndia-33 . PONNA KRISHNA SI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Sector, MP and MLA

2. The Deputy lnspector General of Police, CRPF Range, Hyderabad. Telangana.

3. The Commandant, -141 BN, O/o. The Commandant-141 BN C.R.P.F, Kavya Gardens, Bhadrachalam, Khammam(Dist)T,S.

4. One CC tc SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGH| Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K L N.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT IOPUC] oneCCtoDEPUTYSoLlClToRGENERALoFlNDIA,HighCourtforthe Si"ie f"tangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] -or 6 7 Two CD Copies BSR BS w \ I HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 ! I CC TODAY S o, 11110! 2m5 n 1' (:r ( ( ORDER WP.No.17589 of 2022 a* o ]} ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS R .od"\ Y-t- ,(ffi-r I