Delhi High Court

Preetam Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 26 August, 2010

Author: Gita Mittal

7
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                       +       W.P.(C)No.1539/2010

                                    Date of Decision : 26th August, 2010
%

      PREETAM SINGH                                ..... Petitioner
                           Through : Mr. H.S. Dahiya, Adv.

                      versus


    UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS          ..... Respondents
                   Through : Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. with
                             Mr. Asit Tiwari, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                   YES
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  YES

3.      Whether the judgment should be                          YES
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. Rule D.B.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that he has

the original record relating to the case and having regard to

the short nature of the controversy, the matter may be heard.

Accordingly, with the consent of both parties, we have heard

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21 st August,

2008 whereby in exercise of powers under the Proviso of Sub-

Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force

Rules, 2001 (CISF Rules hereafter), the services of the

petitioner as Constable with the Central Industrial Security

Force were inter alia terminated. The petitioner also assails the

order dated 12th February, 2009 passed by the Inspector

General of the force rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

4. The facts arising to the present writ petition are in narrow

compass. The petitioner was appointed as Constable with the

CISF on 1st September, 2007 and as per the terms and

conditions of service, was placed under probation for a period

of two years. After his appointment, the petitioner had been

required to complete the formalities and fill up the attestation

form wherein against a query at serial No.12 of the attestation

form with regard to the petitioner had ever been prosecuted in

any "Court of Law", the petitioner had answered in negative.

The respondents contend that the attestation form contained a

warning to the effect that furnishing of false information or

suppression of any factual information therein would be a

disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for

employment under the Government.

5. The record produced before us discloses that the

respondents received a communication dated 5th August, 2008

from the District Magistrate, Bharatpur to the effect that the

petitioner had been implicated in a case bearing No.115/2007

under Section 147, 149, 353, 336, 283 of IPC and case

No.118/2007 under Section 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 283

of IPC. This communication also informed the respondents that

the matter was still under investigation.

6. On receipt of the said communication, without anything

more, the commandant of the CISF Unit NALCO Damanjodi in

District Koraput, Orissa proceeded to pass the impugned order

dated 21st August, 2008 terminating the services of the

petitioner and directing that he would be entitled to claim a

sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for

the one month notice period.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner addressed a representation

dated 19th September, 2008 to the office of DIG, CISF, Eastern

Zone, CISF Headquarters. However, the same was returned on

25th September, 2008 for the reason that no penalty has been

imposed upon the petitioner by the Competent Authority and

consequently in view of the provisions of rule 25(2) of the CISF

Rule, 2001, no appeal lay against such order of termination.

The petitioner was diverted to make a representation in terms

of Rule 26 of the CISF Rules to the Inspector General.

7. The petitioner has placed on record the character

certificate dated 3rd October, 2008 from the office of District

Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) which clearly

states that after completion of investigation, the petitioner was

not found involved in the above criminal case and his name

was consequently dropped therefrom. It is also certified that

petitioner has not been found involved or convicted in any

criminal case.

8. In this background, the petitioner made a representation

dated 5th November, 2008 to the office of Inspector General.

This revision was also not accepted and came to be rejected by

an order passed on 12th February, 2009.

9. These orders dated 21st August, 2008 and 12th February,

2009 are assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that

he had no knowledge about the registration of the cases by the

police authority against him; that he had never been arrested

and no notice even summoning him by the police station had

ever been received. It is further contended that the petitioner

had learnt about the registration of the case only after he

made inquiries from the respondents with regard to the

reasons for his termination and was informed about the

pendency of the two cases. It is further contended that as a

result of the termination orders, the petitioner would stand

precluded from Government service. The petitioner also makes

a grievance that though after completion of investigation, the

police arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was not

involved in the case and the same stood dropped so far as

against the petitioner, the respondents have not paid any heed

to these facts.

In this background, it is urged that merely being cited as

being involved in a false criminal case could be no reason for

invoking the powers under the CISF Act and Rules and

terminating the services of the petitioner.

10. Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has justified the action taken against the

petitioner on the plea that the registration of the case against

the petitioner was confirmed by the police authorities and that

he had concealed such information in the attestation form. It is

submitted that the registration of a case by itself would be

sufficient reason for terminating the service of the petitioner

for the reason that he stood implicated in a criminal case. It is

also urged that the petitioner had failed to disclose the

registration of the criminal case and, therefore, the impugned

orders against the petitioner terminating his service by the

respondents would not be faulted with.

11. We have given our considered thought to the submissions

of the parties and have also carefully examined the available

record before us. We find that knowledge of the registration of

the case for the first time came to be revealed on receipt of the

letter dated 5th August, 2008 from the police authorities,

District Magistrate, Bharatpur when the respondents forwarded

the attestation form of the petitioner for verification. The

District Magistrate also informed the respondents of the fact

that investigation in the said case No.115/2007 and case

No.118/2007 was underway. This would manifest that even the

police were not sure about the involvement of the petitioner or

even the other accused personnel.

12. The petitioner has stated that he was not aware of his

having been named in the said cases or registration of the

cases against him. It has been stated that the petitioner came

to know about the registration of the cases only after impugned

order terminating his services was passed by the respondents

and he made inquiries with regard to the same from his home

town.

13. Neither the impugned orders nor the counter affidavit

take the stand of attributing knowledge to the petitioner about

the pendency of the cases at the time when he was enrolled on

20th August, 2007 or when he filled up the attestation form.

14. The record also does not disclose any material which

would enable this Court to hold that the petitioner was at all

aware of the registration of the criminal cases by the police or

the pendency against him at the time he filled up the

attestation form. In this background, it certainly cannot be held

that the petitioner intentionally or deliberately filled up or

submitted false information to the respondents when he was

selected for recruitment and filled up the attestation form. The

petitioner cannot be faulted for not giving such information

which he was ignorant about. We may notice that this is the

sole ground for terminating the services of the petitioner by the

orders dated 21st August, 2008 and 12th February, 2009. These

orders, therefore, contrary to the facts, are not based on any

relevant material and cannot legally stand.

15. We may also notice that the petitioner has explained that

on account of the agitation by the Gurjars for reservation in

Rajasthan, the police station Uchhan, District Bharatpur had

registered the cases on 1st June, 2007 against several persons

who have participated in the agitation. The petitioner has

explained that he was not even present in Rajasthan on the

date of the alleged agitation for the reason that he had been

engaged as driver on a private vehicle of Kalyan Oil Bulk

Carrier in the CISF Unit at the IOC, Mathura. He explained that

his name was wrongly mentioned in the case by the police

based on names collected by them of people who were living in

the villages. We find that this stand was taken by the petitioner

in the representation submitted by him to the Inspector

General as well which came to be disposed of by the order

dated 12th February, 2009. It is unfortunate that this plea of

the petitioner, which could have been easily verified by the

respondents and would have been in the record related to the

plea set up by the petitioner, that this was not relevant to the

fact that the FIR was lodged against him.

16. The petitioner has drawn our attention also to other

similar notices to show cause issued by the respondents. In this

behalf a notice dated 19th September, 1996 issued to Constable

Gopal Bhagat making allegations of his being involved in the

criminal case and having concealed this information at the time

of filling up of attestation form is placed before us. The

petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the order dated

6th August, 2003 relating to Constable Puran Bahadur wherein

the respondents conducted a disciplinary inquiry against this

Constable on the charge that he gave false information and

wrongly filled up the attestation form at the time of

recruitment. Based on this notice and order, learned counsel

for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have

themselves accepted the position the principles of natural

justice are required to be complied with before proceeding to

terminate the services of a CISF personnel on such allegations

which cast caused a stigma on his character and drastically

impact his future.

17. In the given facts the respondents ought to have issued

notice to show cause to the petitioner as in the other cases.

The respondents ought to have considered the reply. Grave

injustice has resulted to the petitioner whose services were

unfortunately terminated in the summary manner on 21 st

August, 2008 without giving any regard to the relevant facts.

Perhaps if the petitioner had been afforded opportunity to show

cause, the true facts would have been revealed.

18. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our

attention to the fact that after the filing of this writ petition, the

petitioner has approached the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan by way of SB Civil W.P. No.3821/2010 seeking the

same relief as has been sought herein. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken steps for

withdrawal of the said petition. We find that copy of order

dated 13th August, 2010 permitted the petitioner to withdraw

the writ petition which was filed in the Rajasthan High Court

has been placed on record. It is admitted position that the

present writ petition is prior writ petition and consequently

there is no legal impairment for the adjudication and grant of

relief to the petitioner.

19. In view of the above discussion, we hold and direct as

follows:-

(i) The order dated 21st August, 2008; 12th February,

2009 and 22nd May, 2009 and any other order

confirming the termination of the service of the

petitioner are held to be arbitrary and illegal and

hereby set aside and quashed.