Som Dutt vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1453 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1.The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order of termination passed against the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, by order dated March 12, 1999. A copy f the said order is annexed as `Annexure-1'to the writ petition. It is stated in the said communication that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force w.e.f. May 4, 1997 and that the said petitioner was consi ered unsuitable to continue in Government Service. Consequently it was ordered that under the terms and conditions laid down in the CISF Act 1968 and the Rules framed there under and in exercise of the powers conferred on the Deputy Inspector General of olice vide clause 2(a) of agreement executed by him under Rule 15 of the CISF Rules 1969, the service of the petitioner was terminated.

2. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years. He went through a training course for a period of nine months commencing from May 1997. After completion of the said training course the pe itioner was detailed for election duty and was subsequently posted to the CISF Unit DSP, Durgapur. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the present petition was filed in this court.

3. Notice was issued on the said writ petition whereupon the respondent has contested the writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit. It is stated in the said counter-affidavit that while the petitioner was serving in the Unit, a letter dated October 7, 998 was received from the DIG, CISF, NZ, Saket, in which it was intimated that they had received a complaint from Shri Kishan Chand stating that the petitioner, who was recruited in the CISF as a Constable against ST quota, does not actually belong to th ST category. After receiving the said complaint from Kishan Chand, the case was referred to to the CISF Headquarters to the Department of SC/ST and OBC Welfare, Government of Haryana. The Director, SC/ST and OBC Welfare Department, Government of H ryana, intimated the respondents by their letter dated July 29, 1998 that the `Bawariya' community did not come under the purview of Scheduled Tribe. They also clarified that the Government of Haryana had not declared a list of Scheduled Tribes. There ore, the claim of the petitioner that he belonged to ST category was found to be false. In view of the said position, action was taken to terminate the service of the petitioner who was under probation at the relevant time.

4. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that at the time of recruitment in the CISF the petitioner was recorded as a ST candidate as he had produced a certificate of belonging to `Bawariya Community' recognised as Tapriwasi Tribe issued by the ub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Kosli (Rewari). He had also declared himself as a ST category in column 9(b) of the Attestation Form which was a false declaration. It is stated that the petitioner furnished false information at the time of his recruitme t in the CISF and, therefore, he was not found suitable to continue in government service and his services were terminated in accordance with the provisions contained in para 2(a) of the agreement executed by the petitioner and also in terms of Rule 15 o the CISF Rules, 1969 allowing him one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, we have heard the counsel and also perused the records placed before us.

5. The petitioner after his recruitment was placed on probation for a period of two years and, therefore, on the date when his service was terminated he was a probationer. At the time of his recruitment the petitioner submitted a caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to the `Bawariya' community recognised as Tapriwasi Tribe. In the attestation form furnished by him and particularly in clause 9(b) of the said form the petitioner has mentioned his caste as Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has a so mentioned his caste as 'ST' in Part I of the medical examination report. The petitioner hails from Haryana. The records and the letter written by the Director, SC/ST and OBC Welfare, Government of Haryana, conclusively proves and establishes that the `Bawariya' community is not recognised as Scheduled Tribe in Haryana and that,in fact, the Haryana Government has not declared a list of Scheduled Tribes. When there was no list of any Scheduled Tribes in Haryana at all, the petitioner could not h ve claimed himself as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. He was selected as a Scheduled Tribe candidate whereas he was in fact not a Scheduled Tribe candidate.

6. The question is whether the petitioner having served for about a year should be allowed to continue to be in service. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the service of the respondent in May 1997. The petitioner was on probation and he di not complete the probation period. Therefore, during the aforesaid period if it is found that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe category as claimed by him he could not have in fact been appointed as against a vacancy belonging to Sche uled Tribe quota. The aforesaid enrolment came to be made in view of the certificate produced by the petitioner and also primarily in view of the fact that the petitioner declared himself as a Scheduled Tribe category candidate in the attestation for and also in Part-I of the medical examination report. The contention that the respondents themselves considered the petitioner as ST candidate and given him the said benefit in view of the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 1 2 of 1975 entitled Buta Ram Azad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. dated November 15, 1982, is also without any basis, as the records of the case clearly indicate that the petitioner was treated and considered as ST category and was enrolled as ag inst a ST vacancy on the basis of the declaration of the petitioner in the attestation form and medical report.

7. We have carefully perused the contents of Annexures IV and V which are annexed with the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the same would indicate that in Part-I of the said medical examination report the caste or race of the petitioner is shown as `S.T' The petitioner signed the said form. The attestation form is also annexed. A perusal of the same would also indicate that the petitioner had declared himself as a candidate of the Scheduled Tribe category. He had also accepted the condition tha his services could be terminated by the Deputy Inspector General at any time during the period of his initial training or the period of his probation thereafter on issue of notice of one month or the tender of one month's pay in lieu of such notice. The said stipulation appears in the form of agreement filed as Annexure VI. The attestation form also contained a stipulation that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualifica ion and was likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. It is also stipulated in the warning portion of the said attestation form that if false information had been furnished or that there had been suppression of any fact al information in the Attestation Form which comes to notice any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. In the attestation form the petitioner had himself shown to be a candidate of `Bawariya' community and specifically stating that he was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the petitioner had furnished false information and there has been suppression of factual information in the attestation form which empowers the respondents to terminate his ervices in terms of the stipulation in the attestation form as also the form of agreement. In Samir Akhtar Khan v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 6920/2002, decided on August 27, 2004, this court held discharge of the petitioner therein from service on fu nishing of wrong information in the attestation form at the time of joining service as valid.

8. It was also contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner never ever suppressed any material fact and he had only stated that he belonged to the `Bawariya' community and never stated before the respondent authority that he b longed to `Scheduled Tribe' category. He has drawn our attention to one of the certificates which only stated that he belonged to `Tapriwasi' community. But the aforesaid statement is belied by the attestation form and the medical examination repor which the petitioner had signed categorically indicating that he declared himself as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and, therefore, he was enrolled.

9. The next submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was that a regular departmental proceedings should have been held as the order of termination is stigmatic. We are, however, unable to agree with the aforesaid plea. The termination is in accordance with the stipulation in the attestation form and the agreement entered into between the parties. When the agreement stipulates that the service could be terminated on one month's notice during the period of probation on any ground and whe in the attestation form it was clearly stipulated that any wrong information furnished would make the appointment liable to be terminated, exercise of such powers for the aforesaid reason cannot be said to be in any manner stigmatic. Therefore, the de ision in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, 1999 (1) S.C. Service Law Journal 232, which is relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the contention that a regular departmental en uiry should have been held is not applicable as the facts are clearly distinguishable.

10.In that view of the matter we find no infirmity in the termination order passed against the petitioner. The same is upheld and the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.