Joice Michael vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3232 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 13th July, 2010

+                         W.P.(C) No.117/1993


     JOICE MICHAEL                               ..... Petitioner
                          Through Dr. M.P. Raju, Adv. with Ms. Maria, Adv.


                  versus


     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

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

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

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 26 th

November, 1991 whereby he has been terminated from service under the

applicable rules during the period of probation for the reason that he was

not found suitable for retention in the force. The petitioner's appeal against

this order of removal was rejected by an order dated 20th February, 1992 by

the competent authority which has also been challenged before this court

on the ground that the same is also non speaking.

2. The petitioner was interviewed and selected on 16th August, 1989 for

the post of Head Constable/Driver by the Central Industrial Security Force

(CISF). After such selection, the petitioner was unfortunately implicated in a

criminal case arising out of an incident on 27th April, 1990. On 20th June,

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.1 1990, a criminal case no.246/90 under Section 279 & 338 of the Indian

Penal Code was registered against the petitioner by the police station Palai

with regard to the said occurrence. The respondents contend that the

petitioner was arrested in this case on 21st June, 1990 and admitted to bail.

3. In the meantime, pursuant to his selection and appointment, the

respondents had required the petitioner to fill up an attestation and

verification form. The petitioner filled this form on 10 th October, 1990.

However, in answer to the specific queries at serial no.12(a), (b) and (c) to

the effect as to whether the petitioner has ever been arrested/prosecuted,

kept in detention, and bound down, the petitioner had answered in the

negative. In this background, an appointment letter dated 30th October,

1990 was issued to the petitioner appointing him w.e.f. 15th October, 1990

on the post of Head Constable/Driver.

4. As per the prescribed procedure, the respondents had effected

verification of the information given by the petitioner in his attestation form

from the authorities who would be concerned with the same. Our attention

is drawn to a letter dated 19th August, 1991 from the District Collector,

Kotayam received by the respondents informing them that the petitioner

had been arraigned as an accused in criminal case no.246/90 and arrested

on 20th June, 1990. The collector had also informed the respondents that a

case was charge-sheeted by the Judicial Magistrate first class at Palai on

19th September, 1990 and that the case was pending trial before the court.

5. The respondents were of the view that the petitioner had deliberately

suppressed the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case in the

attestation form submitted by him which rendered him unsuitable for

service. Consequently, the Deputy Inspector General (North Zone) of the

CISF in exercise of his powers under Rule 19 read with Rule 15 of the CISF

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.2 Rules, 1969 and para 2 sup para (a) of the Agreement contained on the

form, passed an order dated 26th November, 1991 terminating the services

of the petitioner with immediate effect and directed payment of one month

pay in lieu of one month notice in accordance with the applicable rules.

6. We have carefully examined the attestation form which was submitted

by the petitioner. There is no dispute to the effect that the petitioner had

answered the aforenoticed three pertinent and relevant queries in the

negative. It is also not disputed that the information which had been sought

by the respondents by these queries, was essential and pertinent for the

purposes of verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner

and may have rendered him ineligible for appointment to the service.

7. Dr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner has staunchly urged that

the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the said case and for this

reason he had answered the queries seeking information about the pending

cases in the negative. It is urged that the petitioner was not arrested by the

police and for this reason as well, the petitioner cannot be faulted. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has defended the petitioner's actions contending

that the petitioner learnt about the registration and pendency of the

criminal case when he received summons from the court of the Judicial

Magistrate First Class and appeared before the court on 23rd November,

1991. It is submitted that the petitioner was admitted to bail on this date.

The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment dated 31st August,

1992 passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the petitioner of the

charges laid against him in the said case.

8. These submissions, however, are not not borne out from the record of

the respondents which has been placed before us. The respondents have

also placed a certificate dated 24th August, 1993 issued by the sub-inspector

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.3 of police certifying that a case being criminal case no.246/1990 was

registered under Sections 279 & 338 of the IPC by the police station Palai on

20th June, 1990 in which the petitioner was arrested and on 21st June, 1990

admitted on bail. The petitioner does not disclose this fact even in the writ

petition.

9. Our attention has been drawn to the pronouncement of the Apex

Court reported (2008) 1 SCC 660 R. Radhakrishnan. Vs. Director

General of Police & Ors. wherein similar conduct as that of the present

petitioner arose for consideration. On similar facts, the court had observed

as follows:-

"10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.

xxx xxx xxx

13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise."

While drawing the above conclusion, the court had relied on an earlier

pronouncement reported at (1996) 11 SCC 605 Delhi Administration

Through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar wherein it was

observed that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the

important criteria of test whether the selected candidate is suitable for post.

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.4

10. On this very issue, we may usefully refer to the pronouncement of the

Apex Court reported at (2005) 2 SCC 746 Secretary, Department of

Home Secretary, A.P. & Ors. Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu.

"......... As is noted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan case the object of requiring information in various columns like column 12 of the attestation form and declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of the case it cannot be said that the respondent h ad made false declaration or had suppressed material information."

11. Mr. Ankur Chhiber, learned counsel for the respondents has also

placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court of

which one of us (Gita Mittal, J) was a member. Learned counsel in this

regard has drawn our attention to para 12 of the judgment reported at 113

(2004) DLT 373 (DB) Samim Akhtar Khan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

wherein a challenge to similar order of discharge for the reasons of

suppression of material and factual information in the attestation form was

laid. It was held by this court that the petitioner had not only suppressed

material and factual information in the attestation form but he had also

furnished false information. No information was given by the petitioner

regarding the institution and pendency of the aforesaid criminal case

against him in which even the charge-sheet stood filed. Such information

was required to be disclosed at the time of enrolment and filling up the

attestation form and that the petitioner had deliberately given wrong

information to the respondents against the same queries as have been

asked by the respondents in the instant case.

12. The position in the case in hand is similar. In the instant case, the

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.5 attestation form made a specific and pointed inquiry as to whether the

applicant had ever been arrested or prosecuted or kept under detention or

bound down. The petitioner had incorrectly answered all the four queries.

The petitioner has failed to disclose the registration of the case against him

by the police station Palai. He has also failed to disclose the fact that he

was arrested and admitted to bail by the police. Mr. Ankur Chhiber, learned

counsel for the respondents has vehemently asserted that even in the writ

petition, the petitioner does not disclose his arrest by the police on 21st

June, 1990.

13. In this background, we find force in the respondents' contention that

the petitioner has deliberately and knowingly concealed the said material

information in the attestation and verification form. The action of the

respondents in holding that the petitioner was unfit for retention in the

service cannot faulted. The same is in consonance with the applicable rules

and the principles laid down in the above judicial precedents.

14. In the above facts, the challenge to the appellate order is also not

sustainable and is devoid of legal merit and is hereby rejected.

15. It is trite that so far as the suitability of a person for appointment to a

service or his continued retention in service, it is for the respondents to

assess and it is not for this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to adjudicate

on the same. In any case, the petitioner having concealed material facts

and having given incorrect information to the respondents in the attestation

form, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in favour

of the petitioner. The acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case

subsequent to his termination would have no bearing on the issue under

consideration. It is the conduct of the petitioner in concealing a material

fact and deliberately furnishing false information in the attestation form

WP (C) No.117/1993 Page No.6 which formed the basis of the impugned order.

16. So far as challenge to Rule 15 of the extant CISF Rules is concerned,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision we

have taken on the merits of the case, he does not press the same. In any

case, such challenge is rendered infructuous for the reason that Rule 15 of

the CISF Rules since stand amended w.e.f. 2001.

For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition which is

hereby dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.

                                       GITA MITTAL, J



                                       J.R. MIDHA, J
      JULY 13, 2010
      aa




      WP (C) No.117/1993                                Page No.7