The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government v. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3773 of 2015 ---------- Betka Murmu … … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government Versus of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, Telephone Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka 5. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 6. The Sergeant Major, Police Line, Deoghar … … … Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I 17/15.04.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- PRAYERS OF THE PETITIONER 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 713, Deoghar, dated 14.04.2013, issued by Superintendent of Police, Deoghar whereby, vide Deoghar District Order No. 520 of 2013, petitioner was dismissed from the service as also for quashing the appellate order dated 02.11.2015, as contained in Memo No. 1568/Go., passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and thereafter to pay him full back wages as well as seniority. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. As per the factual matrix, pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 2010, after qualifying the in physical and written test and after medical examination, petitioner joined the service as constable in the District Police on 01.09.2011 in the district of Deoghar. Thereafter, petitioner was sent for police training at Jharkhand Armed Police Camp 5th, situated at Mohanpur in the district of Deoghar for a period of nine months and thereafter, was posted 1 at District Armed Police in different places where he discharged the duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. Later on, vide letter issued under Memo no. 1739, dated 19.11.2011 of the office of Superintendent of Police sent to the Superintendent of Police, Godda, a request was made for character verification of petitioner and thereafter, verification report was submitted mentioning therein that petitioner had been chargesheeted vide Chargesheet no. 23 of 2007 in connection with Poreyahat P.S. Case No. 109 of 2006, dated 30.11.2006 for the offence under Section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, vide memo no. 11, dated 04.01.2013, a show-cause notice was issued by the Sergeant Major, Deoghar Police Line, Deoghar which was duly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, pursuant to Deoghar District Order no. 520/2013, as contained in Memo no. 713/Deoghar, dated 14.04.2013, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, petitioner was dismissed from the service with immediate effect. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. After trial in S.T. No. 83 of 2007, petitioner and others were acquitted vide order dated 07.11.2014, passed by District and Additional Sessions Judge – 1st, Godda. Thereafter, petitioner filed his representation before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar on 15.01.2015. Petitioner also filed representation before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka on 10.02.2015. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2015 on the ground that the same was not under Public Servant Enquiry Act, 1850 and Police Hand Book Rule 828/851/ 852. Being aggrieved, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 4. Ms. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner though faced trial of Poreyahat P.S. Case No. 109 of 2006, dated 30.11.2006, initially instituted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the three unknown persons. After trial in S.T. No. 83 of 2007, petitioner and others had been acquitted vide order dated 07.11.2014, passed by District and Additional Sessions Judge – 1st, Godda. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner had been made accused under 2 some confusion as he was never involved in any case but had been chargesheeted by the police and on said ground he was dismissed from the service without any departmental inquiry or awaiting Judgment of the said criminal case and as such, after acquittal, the ground of dismissal has become nonest in the eyes of law and the impugned orders are not sustainable and fit to be quashed. There was no adverse report found proven against the petitioner and as he being a member of Scheduled Tribe, after being successful, joined the service and passed the training of constable and as such, during the entire episode, the entire family has suffered a lot. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to learned GP-I urges that the petitioner had full knowledge about pendency of criminal case against him but in spite thereof, he concealed the material facts in his application form and suppressed the same. It was only upon character verification by the police, it came to the knowledge that petitioner is an accused in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 109/2006. In the advertisement itself, it was clearly mentioned that a candidate has to give an undertaking that there is no criminal case pending against him but petitioner had knowingly given a false undertaking and suppressed the fact. Before passing the impugned order, proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that from the order dated 07.11.2014, passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda, it transpires that the acquittal was not a clean acquittal rather petitioner alongwith others were given benefits of doubt. The impugned orders require no interference and instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the specific case of the petitioner was that while filling-up the form, the petitioner did not disclose about pendency of the criminal case. Admittedly, there was concealment of fact on part of the petitioner. The petitioner was selected by the respondents and thereafter, only on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, the impugned order 3 was passed. However, it is apparent from the records that petitioner was acquitted giving him benefits of doubt. 8. From the chargesheet no. 23/7 and the Poreyahat P.S. Case No. 109 of 2006, it appears that petitioner was involved in the case of dacoity. The petitioner, to buttress his arguments, relying on the Judgment of the trial court, emphatically argues that he was acquitted in the said criminal case and thus the impugned orders are not sustainable and fit to be reconsidered. From perusal of the Judgment rendered in the said criminal case, it appears that petitioner was not honourably acquitted rather he was given benefits of doubt. Police force is a disciplined force. Any person having doubtful character, cannot be allowed to continue as a member of police force. Petitioner’s involvement in the case of dacoity had been concealed at the time of filling up of form and process of selection, which cannot be appreciated by this Court. No sympathetic consideration can be given to the petitioner even though he has been acquitted in the said criminal case. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the catena of decisions on this point in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has categorically held 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. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent. 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. The employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.” 4 10. An employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment even though he has been acquitted of the charges, if any criminal case is pending at the time of filling up of the form. In such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good and the incumbent is involved in a number of cases, then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness of the employee in the services on the basis of material on record. 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. 11. Similarly, in paras 36, 37 and 38.4.1 of the judgment passed in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:- “36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. 37. The ‘McCarthyism’ is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 38. 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.” 12. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018 (Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.) along with Civil Appeal Nos. 68 of 2018, 69 of 5 2018 and 70 of 2018 delivered on 08.01.2018, in which issue fell for consideration was “as to whether, the candidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee?”, the Court opined that the Screening Committee had minutely examined the cases of the respondents and set aside the impugned judgement upholding cancellation of the candidature of the respondents holding there that “in a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference”. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions of law, the decision of the respondents that the petitioner is not suitable for the post does not call for any interference. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. A person who has not disclosed properly about pendency of criminal case against him, is not fit for appointment. Even if he has been acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/ completely exonerated. As such, no interference is required in the instant writ petition. More so, the fact remains petitioner concealed material fact at the time of submission of application form for appointment. 14.
Decision
Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 6