Yogesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1895 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. On 7.3.03 a letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner by Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Durgapur whereby the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'Force'). In the letter of appointment, it was stated that petitioner would be governed by the provisions of CRPF Act, 1949 and the Rules framed there under. Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner joined the Force and reported to the authorities at Durgapur from where he was sent to Jammu & Kashmir for further training, which was mandatory for the post of Constable (GD) and he joined there on 15.3.03. On 6.12.03 the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF, New Delhi under proviso to Sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temporary Service Rules'), terminating his services forthwith, without assigning any reason. After completion of formalities, petitioner was dispatched to his home with the advice that he may pursue his case with the higher authorities. On arriving back to his native place in Ghazipur, when the petitioner made enquiries and he came to know that when the matter came up for his police verification, the police authorities had pointed out that a case had been registered against him in November, 1996 and report in that regard was sent to the authorities. The petitioner met the higher authorities on 24.12.03 particularly respondent No. 3 and explained that in November, 1996 the petitioner was only 14 years old when an FIR had been lodged in the local Police Station on account of a quarrel between his neighbours over a disputed piece of land. He was innocent and had been falsely implicated and had subsequently been acquitted on merits vide judgment and order dated 3.7.2003. The petitioner also submitted a fresh character certificate obtained from the Superintendent of Police Ghazipur. However, the authorities did not accept that certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 10.2.04 and annexed copy of the judgment but again of no consequence. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.4.04. Being aggrieved by the orders of the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenges the validity and correctness of these orders on the following grounds:

(a) The petitioner was a member of the Force and his conditions of service are to be governed by special Statute namely CRPF Act and Rules and hence his termination under CCS Temporary Service Rules was bad in law.

(b) The order of termination is punitive and beyond the scope of his letter of appointment. The punitive action has been taken without following due process of law.

(c) The orders are violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has not been granted any opportunity to show cause against the proposed action particularly in face of the judgment given by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur acquitting him of the charge.

2. According to the respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as his services has been terminated in accordance with rules. The petitioner was not entitled to any opportunity as he admittedly made incorrect statements in his Verification Form. After he was enlisted, his verification roll was sent to District Magistrate, Ghazipur for verification. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur vide his letter dated 24.7.03 intimated that the individual was involved in Criminal case bearing No. 250 A/96 Under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, which ended in his acquittal vide judgment dated 3.7.03 of the Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. In view of the adverse verification report, the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect under Rule 5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reason. The appeal of the appellant was also rejected. The petitioner in Column No. 12 of the Verification Roll had answered 'No', thus, made an incorrect or a false declaration in the Form. The petitioner concealed the factual information about his involvement in a criminal case while filling the Verification Roll inspite of clear warning that suppression of factual information would render the candidate unfit for employment in the Force.

3. The respondents have also annexed various orders, Form and documents to justify passing of the order of termination.

4. It may be noticed, at the very outset, that the Form which is issued under Rule 14(B) of the Central Reserve Police Act, 1949 contains a warning at the very opening, which reads as under:

The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the Government.

5. Column No. 12 and answers of the petitioner to the said questions read as under:

(a) Have your ever been arrested prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down or convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission or appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution?

'No'

(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is 'Yes' then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/University, education authority at the time of filling in this form.

"No"

6. There is no doubt and, in fact, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered Under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 of IPC since November, 1996. He has been acquitted of the said charge in the year 2003. His acquittal will not justify the wrong which he committed and the incorrect information furnished by him would not stand corrected by his acquittal. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to give correct answers to the questions contained in the Form. He filled up the Form on 10.4.03 on which date he was fully grown up and was aware of the pendency of the proceedings initiated against him. The fact that he was 14 years old at the time of alleged commission of the offence would be inconsequential. His acquittal by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction has the effect of wiping out the criminal charge that was framed against him but it cannot ipso facto clearly take away, diminish or wipe out the consequences of incorrect declarations made by him in the Form despite a clear warning.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel to contend that there cannot be an exercise of power unless such power exists in law. Once such power does not exist in law, the purported exercise of it would be an exercise of misuse of power and would be void. The exercise of a power is, therefore, always referable to the source of such power and must be considered in conjunction with it.

8. According to counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have no power to take recourse to the provisions of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules as they have no application to the members of the force, whose conditions of service are controlled by the Act and the Rules afore-referred. On this premise, it is further contended that the alleged exercise of power has no source, therefore, the action is invalid in law. This argument has no basis and in fact is hardly attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There are statutory provisions in the Act, which specifically state that Central Civil Service Rules would, in some fields and to some extent, apply to the members of the force. We may refer to the relevant provisions at this stage. Rule 16 and Rule 102 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules are the relevant provisions and they read as under:

16 (a) All members of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years. During this period of engagement, they shall be liable to discharge at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi-permanency under the provision of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Those not declared quasi-permanent under the said rules shall be continued as temporary Government employees unless they claim discharge as per schedule to the Act. Those who are temporary shall be liable to discharge on one month's notice and those who are quasi-permanent shall be liable to discharge on three months' notice in accordance with the said rules, as amended from time to time.

(b) Should the Central Government decide at any time to disband the Force or any part of it either before termination of the period for which a member of the Force is enrolled or at any time thereafter, he shall be liable to discharge, without compensation from the date of disbandment.

(c) No member of the Force shall withdraw from the duties of his office without the express permission of the Commandant or an accredited gazetted officer.

(d) The appointing authority may, during the period of initial appointment of a member of the Force appointed under Section 4 of the Act, permit him, for good and sufficient reason, to resign from the Force with effect from such date as may be specified in the order accepting his resignation:

Provided that on the acceptance of his resignation any such member of the Force shall be required to refund to the Government all the cost of training imparted to him in the Force or a sum equal to three months' pay and allowances, received by him prior to the date of his resignation whichever is less.

Explanation-(1) For the purpose of this sub-clause "during the period of initial appointment" shall mean the period before a member of the Force is declared quasi-permanent.

(2) The appointing authority may refuse to permit a member of the Force to resign if any emergency has been declared in the country either due to internal disturbances or external aggression.

(3) The appointing authority may give substantive status to such members of the Force as are found suitable in all respect.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

102. Other Conditions of Service

The conditions of service of members of the Force in respect of matters for which no provision is made in these rules shall be the same as are for the time being applicable to other officers of the Government of India of corresponding status.

9. Rule 5 of the CCS Temporary Service Rules empowers the authorities to terminate the services of a temporary servant by notice in writing at any time. As per Clause 4(a) of the letter of appointment, the services could be terminated at any time on one month notice during initial period of three years and without assigning any reason in accordance with the relevant rules. The authorities are thus vested with the power to terminate service of a Government Servant during that period in terms of letter of appointment, Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules and Rule 5 of CCS Temporary Service Rules. The rules do not contemplate any inquiry. Even if a show cause notice was required to be served upon the petitioner, his non-service has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner before the authorities and even before the Court. The petitioner has not disputed that he had given incorrect answer to Column 12 of the Verification Form despite the warning being given by the respondents at the very opening of the Form. The scheme of Rule 16 is unambiguous and it clearly states that a member of the Force shall be enrolled for a period of three years and during this period, he shall be liable to be discharged any time on one month notice by the appointing authority and at the end of that period, they could be made quasi permanent and if they are made quasi permanent, their services would be controlled by the rules. Those who are not declared quasi permanent, would be termed as 'temporary employee' unless they are discharged. The employees, who are not declared quasi-permanent would continue as temporary Government servant unless they claim 'discharge' themselves and during that tenure in terms of this provision, their services would be liable to be discharged with one month notice while quasi-permanent employees could be discharged on 3 months notice. Therefore, it is not only the source of power clearly depicted in these provisions but also a classification is provided in the nature of temporary and quasi-permanent employees making clear rights and obligations in relation to service of those personnel. In these circumstances, the action of the respondents cannot be stated to be without authority of law and not relatable to source of power. Thus, the reliance placed by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) is not of any benefit to the petitioner.

10. Under the terms of letter of appointment or even under the rules, the petitioner would be a temporary employee initially for the period of 3 years and his services would be liable to be terminated in terms of the letter, Rule 5 of the temporary service rules read in conjunction with Rule 16 and Rule 102 of the force rules. No doubt Clause D of letter of appointment also indicates that on joining the department, the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Act and the rules amended from time to time. The petitioner was under training and it could be said that petitioner had not joined the department as such, and even if it is assumed to the contrary, the rules of the force clearly provide application of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules in regard to these subjects including termination simplicitor. No provision was brought to our notice by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, which could show that there was any bar in terminating the service of the petitioner under the aforestated provisions.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then had argued that order terminating the services of the petitioner was punitive and stigmatic. This argument is equally without basis. The order of termination dated 6th December, 2003, reads as under:

OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DIGP GROUP CENTRE, JHARODA KALAN N/DELHI

NO. R.II.1/03-EC-5/1 Dated, the 6 Dec. 2003

OFFICE ORDER

In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, P.J. Singh, Addl. DIGP hereby terminate forthwith the services of No. 035080142 Rt (Ct/GD) Yogesh Kumar Singh and direct that he shall be entitled 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.

Sd/-

(P.J. SINGH) ADIGP GC CRPF New Delhi No. 035080142 Rt (Ct/GD) Yogesh Kumar GC CRPF New Delhi (Through Principal, RTC-IV, CRPF)

Dated, the 6th Dec. 2003

No. R.II.1/03-EC-5/1 Copy forwarded to:

Principal, RTC-4, CRPF, C/O 56 APO in duplicate for necessary action. Original copy of the order meant for the individual may be handed over to No. 035080142 (Rt(Ct.GD) Yogesh Kumar Singh and his signature in token of having received the same, may be obtained on another copy and forwarded to this office, duly attested for our records.

Sd/-

(P.J. SINGH) ADIGP GC CRPF New Delhi INTERNAL

DC(Store)/AC(HQr)/PBC/GC (In triplicate)/ FOC-GC/SRC-GC/EC-VI/COMH/SI(A) for information and necessary action.

12. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the order of termination is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is an order of termination simplicitor.

13. The exercise of power by the respondent is not punitive but has been exercised on the basis of application form submitted by the petitioner containing an incorrect and false information. We have already noticed that in reply to column 12A, the petitioner had made an averment and answered the question, which to his knowledge was incorrect or false. This he did despite the warning contained in the opening Clause (1) of the Form. The petitioner had submitted to the respondents as well as placed the judgment dated 3.7.2003 on record wherein he was acquitted. There is no dispute to the fact that he had filled in the form for employment on 10th April, 2003 when the case was at advance stage. Probably even arguments in the case had been concluded by that time. The petitioner had also attained the age of maturity.

14. Learned Counsel for the respondent had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav and Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF and Ors. to contend that once an applicant or a candidate makes an incorrect or false entry in his form, it will be a conduct, which can hardly be condoned and termination from service would be justified. Even such punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to such offence as otherwise it would mean to give premium on falsehood.

15. In view of settled position of law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly indicate an intentional mis-statement on the part of the petitioner in the form, there is hardly any scope for this Court to take a view different then the one taken by the respondents, particularly while holding that action is arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

16. For the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.