HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.21048 of 2018
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pallavi learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar- Assistant Solicitor General of India. 2 Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings dated 28.12.2016 of the second respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently prays to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police Force. 3 Petitioner asserts that he was provisionally selected for appointment as Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police Force upon the selection test conducted by Staff Selection Commission. He reported to duty and underwent training with effect from 01.04.2013. While so, on 22.07.2014 the petitioner was terminated from service without following the rules and regulations by issuance of notice under Rule 5 (1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, basing on a false/acquitted case. 4 It is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner used to consume ID liquor and that on 06.06.2008 the Excise police implicated him in an excise offence vide PR No.1119/2007-2008. However, after full fledged trial, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem acquitted the petitioner of 2 the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014. Except the said case there were no other allegations against him. 5 Aggrieved by the said termination order of the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 17.08.2016 and the second respondent without looking into the merits of the case and without giving reasons straight away dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 28.12.2016. Hence the present writ petition.
6 The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that as per procedure the respondents verified the character and antecedents of the petitioner with the District Collector, Khammam, which is the native district of the petitioner. After thorough enquiry, the District Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 09.06.2014 intimated that the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2008 as he was involved in an excise offence vide Cr.No.1119/2007-08 under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Kothagudem of Khammam District and that a Calendar Case is pending trial in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Though it is clearly mentioned at Column No.12 in the Verification Form to mention clearly about the involvement of the candidate in any criminal case or whether any case is pending, ever arrested under any crime etc,. the petitioner while filling the form No.25 (i.e. verification roll) at the 3 time of his appointment, has suppressed the facts regarding his arrest and involvement in a criminal case and which is pending trial before the First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem. Therefore, the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 22.07.2014 under the provision contained in Sub-Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965 r/w Training Directorate Letter dated 21.02.2012 as the petitioner was found deliberately suppressed / concealed the fact of his arrest, involvement in criminal case. 7 It is further submitted that the authorities have directed the petitioner to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted of the above said crime. The respondents have construed his involvement in the said crime as well as his conduct in not disclosing the same in the verification form during the verification roll, as misconduct and terminated his services. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem of the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, the case of the petitioner 4 deserves to be considered for reinstatement. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (UOI)1 wherein it is held as under:
30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
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.
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.
The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: -
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.
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 5 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
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.
Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.
69 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to be treated unfit for employment under the Government. It is further contended that in the offer of appointment it was clearly mentioned that on joining CRPF, the petitioner will be governed by CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF Rules, 1955 and CCS (TCS) Rules, 1965 and that the services of the petitioner may be terminated at any time on one month's notice and that on the result of verification if any discrepancy with regard to date of birth, education qualification, caste, community etc is found at a later stage, the petitioner will be liable to be removed from service forthwith. Since the petitioner deliberately suppressed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him at the time of his joining into service, he is not entitled to the relief sought for and the ratio laid down in Avtar Singh case (1 supra) will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
10 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2008 as he was involved in an excise offence vide Cr.No.1119/2007-08 under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Kothagudem of Khammam District and that a Calendar Case was 7 pending trial in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District by the date of his appointment. 11 Though the petitioner was bound to disclose about his involvement in any criminal case or whether any case is pending or ever arrested under any crime, as required in Form No.25 i.e. Verification Form, the petitioner suppressed the same and he has not given any acceptable reason for this.
12 It may be true that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, but it was subsequent to his appointment and it is clear and admitted fact that the said case was pending against him by the date of his appointment i.e. 01.04.2013.
13 What is to be considered is that whether the petitioner has disclosed about pendency of any criminal case as required in Form No.25 or not. But the subsequent acquittal or conviction has no relevance to decide the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has not disclosed about pendency of criminal case against him in Form No.25 and he has also not given any special circumstances for his involvement in the said case. Therefore, the impugned action was taken terminating his services since the action of the petitioner was involving moral turpitude.
814 Coming to the applicability of the various guidelines given by the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar Singh case (1 supra) to the present case, the Hon'ble apex Court clearly observed that 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. In the present case, the petitioner has deliberately and willfully suppressed the factum of his arrest and pendency of a criminal case against him under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.
15 In order to contend that he is entitled to the relief sought for under the said judgment, the petitioner has not placed on record any special circumstances under which he was forced to suppress the factum of pendency of the criminal case against him. 16 The offence alleged against the petitioner was under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The punishment, if the accused is found guilty of the offence under the above section was not less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence. Therefore, the offence alleged against the petitioner was not trivial in nature. In the light of the above discussion, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar Singh case (supra) does not come to rescue of the petitioner. 9 17 It is an admitted fact that on joining CRPF, every employee will be governed by CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF Rules, 1955 and CCS (TCS) Rules, 1965 and that the services of the employee may be terminated at any time on one month's notice and that on the result of verification if any discrepancy with regard to date of birth, education qualification, caste, community etc is found at a later stage, the employee will be liable to be removed from service forthwith. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except to concur with the finding/action taken by the respondent authorities.
18 The next question to be taken into consideration is whether the respondent authorities have followed the procedure laid down in Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 scrupulously or not.
19 Rule 5 (1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, reads as under:
Rule 5 enables Government to dispense with the services of a temporary employee forthwith but does not provide for the forfeiture to Government of a similar amount when the employee does not give the requisite notice.
20 In the case on hand, as per the material placed before the Court and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent authorities, the authorities have directed the petitioner to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them 10 immediately before the termination of his service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Therefore, on this aspect also the respondents have not violated the provisions of the relevant Rules.
21 For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief sought for by him and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
22 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date:25.04.2023 Kvsn