The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.591 of 2021 ……. Umesh Prasad Mahto ... ... PETITIONER -V e r s u s - 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Dy. Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh 4. Superintendent of Police, Chatra ……. ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: - HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L & C) Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L & C) .…… 09/ 19.04.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 issued by respondent No.4 in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.4232 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the respondent No.4 confirmed the previous order of dismissal of the petitioner from services. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into services with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner had been appointed in pursuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2004 to the post of Constable on 10.04.2007. Subsequently, it had come to light of the authority that the petitioner was an accused in Manpur P.S. Case No.19 of 2000 under Sections 427, 447, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. On the basis of suppression of material fact, show cause was issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2007. Pursuant to the 2 same, the petitioner submitted filed his reply before respondent No.4 stating therein that he had no criminal history and it was also stated that Manpur P.S. Case No.19 of 2000 was falsely lodged against him, wherein he was acquitted. However, the petitioner had been dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2007. The order of dismissal had been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached earlier before this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4232 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2019 with a direction upon the respondents to take an informed decision, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. In compliance thereof, the respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 22.07.2019 confirmed the previous order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary on the ground that petitioner was honourably acquitted in Manpur P.S. Case No.19 of 2000 vide order dated 29.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.739 of 2000. He further submits that the petitioner inadvertently while filling up the application form had given an undertaking/declaration that there is no pending case in police station or Court. He further submits that since the petitioner had been appointed in pursuance of the selection process in which he succeeded and as such, before passing of any order of dismissal from service, his honorable acquittal ought to have been considered by the respondents. Learned counsel places heavy reliance in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. 4. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after appointment, as per the requirement of the service rules, the character and antecedents was required to be verified from the concerned District Authority and as such, the same was verified in 3 which it was found that petitioner was involved in Manpur P.S. Case No.19 of 2000 and later on, he was acquitted vide order dated 29.11.2007, but the petitioner had not furnished the said information in application Form at the time of filling of application form that a criminal case is registered and pending against him and as such, the petitioner suppressed the factual information in the application Form for his personal gain, which is best known to him, although there was a clear cut ‘clause/undertaking that I hereby undertake that above information and attached documents are true and if false information is there, my candidature or appointment can be cancelled without any notice’. He further argues that petitioner had filled up the said application Form, wherein he willfully suppressed this fact, ignoring the undertaking mentioned in the application Form, and as such, rightly the respondent No.4 dismissed the petitioner from services, by giving show cause notice. There is no illegality or infirmity, violation of any rules in the impugned order. The petitioner had given wrong declaration at the time of his appointment and as such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there has been a suppression of fact in giving the information in the Application Form by the petitioner at the time of filling of application form. The Application Form is at Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit, which clearly stipulates thus:- Undertaking It is undertaken that there is no any case pending against me in Police Station or Court. 7. The petitoner while filling up the said application Form at the time of filling up application, signed the same knowing well that he is facing trail already been involved in the criminal case and as such, the petitoner wanted to conceal his criminal antecedents and if the petitoner was honest and fair, he could have clearly mentioned about his arrest as well as pendency of criminal case and as such, the same amounts to 4 suppression of fact and Breach of Agreement also. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein His Lordship held that:- 3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi [State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 371 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 263] , where a teacher was employed in a municipal school which was taken over by the Government and who was absorbed in government service in 1972 subject to verification of antecedents and medical fitness. The termination order was passed on the basis of a report made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in government service, as he had taken part in “RSS and Jan Sangh activities”. There was no allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce “McCarthyism” into India which is not healthy to the philosophy of our Constitution. It was observed by this Court that most students and most young men who take part in political activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the other, is it to be to their ever lasting discredit? Sometimes they feel strongly on injustice and resist. They are sometimes pushed into the forefront by elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all these young men be debarred from public employment? Is government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has laid down that the whole business of seeking police report about the political belief and association of the past political activities of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he 5 may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non- disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases? 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 mentioning of required information. 8. In cases where there is suppression of relevant information or submission of false information in application form in regard to criminal procesecution, acquittal, arrest /pendency of criminal case against the candidate/employee, it is always open to employer to take decision to terminate or retain the employee. Admittedly, the candidates are required to furnish correct information relating to their criminal antecedents in the application, before their induction in the service. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, an incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. 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 servcie must be true and there should be no suppression or false mentioning of required information. A candidate having suppressed material information 6 and /or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services. 9. The question is about the credibility and /or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration and/or applying for a post made false declaration and /or not disclosing and /or suppressing material fact of having involved in criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed by the petitioner, the respondents 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. 10. As a sequel to the afroesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of considered view that admittedly, the petitioner had given wrong declaration at the time of filling up the application form, and as such, the petitoner suppressed the factual information for his personal gain. Constables are the Members of a Discipline Force, concealment amounts to indiscipline and violation of Rules, warrants ouster from service and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the instant case and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 11. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed. punit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)