The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4168 of 2019 Govind Kumar Sahu … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. Union of India 2. Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force (Jharkhand Circle), Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, Sembo, Ranchi … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the UOI :Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate :Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC 07/25.04.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of termination affirmed by the appellate authority and further for his reinstatement after quashing of the order of termination with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of constable in Central Reserve Police Force, petitioner applied for the same and after appearing in selection process, he qualified and was asked to join service. After his joining, he was sent for training. While petitioner was on training, an office order was issued by the commandant dated 11.08.2019, terminating him from service with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965 and name of the petitioner was struck off from the Force with effect from 06.09.2014. His service was terminated on the ground that he had mentioned “No” in the verification from against the column of information as to whether any criminal case is pending or not. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority, which was rejected vide order dated 28.09.2018. It is case of the petitioner that he was honourably acquitted in the said criminal case. Being aggrieved, he has knocked door of this Court. 2. 3. RC 2 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is nonest in the eyes of law and the same is capricious, cryptic and fit to be quashed in view of the fact that before passing the same, the authorities have not applied their mind. It has further been argued that though petitioner was honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the same has not been considered in right perspective and impugned order has been passed mechanically. Learned counsel further argues that the reasons assigned by the appellate authority is not tenable in the eyes of law to the effect that no direction was given by the trial court for reinstatement of the petitioner, he has not been reinstated. The said reasons are not tenable in the eyes of law and in
Decision
absence of any specific reasons, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the matter may be remanded back before the authorities concerned to reconsider the same in light of honourable acquittal of the petitioner and in light of several judicial pronouncement. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI assisted by Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order. Even the appellate authority has considered the case in entirety. Everything has been dealt with deliberately and even acquittal has also been duly considered. The appellate authority was of the view that petitioner was member of the disciplined force and since he was charged with concealment of fact that he was involved in a criminal case and as such any person who is charged with concealment at the initial stage of appointment, cannot be allowed to continue in service. Learned counsel further argue that merely because no evidence was brought on record, petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, it cannot be said to be hon’ble acquittal. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope Vs. The Union of India and others passed in L.P.A. No. 239 of 2022 and further justifying the impugned order argues that there is no illegality or any infirmity. A person who has concealed material fact and tried to get appointment RC 3 cleverly, cannot be allowed to continue in the disciplined force. Justifying the impougned order, learned counsel submits that no interference is warranted in the writ petition. 6. Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order for the following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly there is concealment by the petitioner by not giving correct fact while filling up Form-25 which was the requirement for appointment of a police constable in CRPF. Merely because petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in want of any evidence, cannot be termed to be honourable acquittal. (ii) Similar view fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after examining each and every aspects of the matter and after giving due consideration to the celebrated Judgment of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which three Judge Bench emphasizing the need of verification of character and antecedents of the person to be appointed in the government service and after considering the various previous judgments of this Court, had summarized the principles in para-38, which reads as under: “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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. RC 4 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 recourses 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 or 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 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 cancelling 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. In case in 38.9. service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on confirmed employee the is RC 5 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”. (iii) In this regard, it is relevant to quote here paragraphs-8 and 9 of the Judgment passed in the case of Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), which reads as under: 8. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India2, after into consideration the inconsistent views taken in the cases of Union of India v. Methu Meda3; Union of India v. Dilip of Kumar India5; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya6; Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra7; etc., further laid down following principles: Mallick4; Pawan Kumar v. Union taking “89. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case courts have of Avtar enunciated different principles. Singh (supra) different 90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a RC 6 duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark [See Raj to Kumar (supra)] security. society's b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not for automatically appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. candidate entitle a c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?” in 9. Having regard to the guiding principles, laid down in case of Avtar Singh (supra) and in case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Single Bench of the High Court had committed an the error respondents-authorities. The respondents-authorities had after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the the order passed by interfering with RC 7 time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. It was also held that CISF being an armed force of Union of India, is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports, department of atomic energy, department of space, metro, power and steel, for internal security duty etc., and therefore, the force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order; and that the involvement of the petitioner in such grave offences debarred him from the appointment. Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities. (iv) Further, in the said case of Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), the Hon’ble Court has held in para-10 and 11 as under: in 10. The Constitution Bench, case of State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra8 had observed way back in 1963 that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. A three-judge Bench in case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India9 had also held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. 11. In Om Kumar v. Union of India10 this Court had also after considering the Wednesbury Principles and the doctrine of proportionality held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or the other of the well-known principles known as “Wednesbury Principles”11 namely RC 8 whether the order was contrary to law, or whether relevant factors were not considered, or whether irrelevant factors were considered or whether the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. 7. 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement, this Court is not taking any other view than what has already been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC