Delhi High Court
Pranav Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr. on 29 November, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29thNovember, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 5745/2010
PRANAV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satish Kumar, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Stuti Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Responding to an advertisement to fill up 117 vacancies
to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial), petitioner submitted
an application and with respect to information vide Sl.No.15 of
the application form, which required the petitioner to inform if
he had ever been arrested or an FIR had been registered
against him or he had been tried for an offence in a court of
law or convicted by any court, he filled up „N.A.‟ Undisputably,
the petitioner was an accused in FIR No.523/1999 under
Section 307/34 IPC P.S. Moti Nagar in which he had been
acquitted on 21.8.2001.
2. It be noted that the application form was filled up by the
petitioner on 9.10.2006 while applying for the post of Head
Constable (Ministerial).
3. Having successfully cleared the selection process the
petitioner was called upon to fill an attestation form which he
did. It be noted that the attestation form had to be filled up in
duplicate and the petitioner did so on 11.7.2008.
4. The requirement to fill up two attestation forms was that
one was retained in the master file with the department and
the other would be sent to the concerned police station within
the jurisdiction whereof a candidate would reside. In the
attestation form vide Sl.No.13 information required to be
supplied was as under:-
"13.(a)Have you been arrested/prosecuted kept under
detention of bound down/fined, convicted by a
court of law for any offence of
debarred/disqualified by any public service
commission from appearing at its examination
selection or debarred from any other educations
authority/institution.
(b) Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against
you in any Police station? If yes, give complete
detail.
(c) If any case pending against you in any court of
law university or any other education
authority/institution at the time of filling up this
attestation form (if the answer to (a) and (b) is
„Yes‟, full particulars of the case arrest,
detention, fine, conviction sentence etc. in the
nature of the case pending in the country,
university/education authority etc., at the time
of filling up this form should be given."
5. We find that in one attestation form pertaining to
information sought vide Sl.No.13(a), (b) and (c) the petitioner
has written „No‟. In the second attestation form which we
incidentally find is in a handwriting different than the first,
pertaining to Sl.No.13(a) and 13(c), „No‟ has been written and
pertaining to 13(b) it is written that the petitioner was an
accused for having committed an offence as afore-noted in
para 1.
6. It appears that the second attestation form has been
changed for the simple reason the handwriting of the first and
the second are entirely different. It appears that at the stage
when even in the attestation form petitioner gave wrong
information, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner
to show cause as to why he has withheld relevant information
by informing „No‟ against each entry at Sl.No.13(a), (b) and (c),
and for which his appointment be not cancelled. This we note
was done after police verification revealed petitioner being
charged as an accused for having committed an offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC P.S. Moti Nagar.
7. Petitioner submitted a response in which he stated that
being a layman, by oversight, he wrongly filled up column
No.15 in the application form and that after he was declared
successful he correctly filled up the attestation form. He
highlighted that he had been acquitted by the court.
8. The Appointing Authority was not impressed and
cancelled the selection of the petitioner recording clearly that
he had deliberately furnished false information.
9. Petitioner‟s challenge before the Tribunal vide impugned
order dated 12.11.2009 has failed. OA No.393/2009 filed by
him has been dismissed.
10. The Tribunal has noted the fact of there being different
information in the two attestation forms and has noted the
difference in the handwriting of the two forms. The Tribunal
has thus dismissed the Original Application filed by the
petitioner.
11. We have seen the original record and indeed we find that
while applying for the job, the petitioner withheld relevant
information to be supplied vide Sl.No.15. After he was selected
we find two attestation forms bearing signatures of the
petitioner. We find that in one attestation form against
information sought vide Sl.No.13(a), (b) and (c) „No‟ has been
written, meaning thereby, according to the petitioner he was
never an accused for having committed any offence. In the
second attestation form we find that pertaining to column
No.13(b), information pertaining to petitioner being an accused
for having committed an offence punishable under Section
307/34 IPC has been supplied, but we note that there is a
difference in the handwriting in the two attestation forms and
thus there is every possibility that the petitioner has managed
to replace the second attestation form. We may note that
according to the respondents the petitioner never supplied the
information in question and that it was during police
verification that it surfaced that the petitioner was an accused
for having committed an offence punishable under Section
307/34 IPC.
12. We are satisfied that the petitioner has deliberately
withheld relevant information and there are strong reasons to
suspect that the petitioner has managed to replace the second
attestation form. In our opinion, this misconduct is sufficient
justification to deny public employment as a police officer to
the petitioner.
13. Thus, we refrain from dealing with the other issue
whether as a result of his being acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC should his being an
accused be taken into account to deny employment to the
petitioner.
14. Suffice would it be to state that on being established that
an applicant has deliberately withheld relevant information, it
would be justification enough to deny public employment, we
dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2010
rk
