Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal vs Uoi & Ors. on 13 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13th July, 2011
+ WP(C) No.2502/1998
SOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate and
Ms.Punam Singh, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. It is not in dispute that after he was selected as a constable
in CRPF, petitioner was required to fill up a verification roll, which
petitioner did somewhere in the month of August 1997. It is also
not in dispute that amongst other information, vide Column 12A,
the petitioner was required to inform whether he was ever
arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court of Law for having
committed any offence. The proforma lists the questions in Hindi
as also English. Petitioner responded to the column in Hindi by
filling up 'Nahi (No)'. This admittedly was incorrect. Pursuant to
an FIR registered in the year 1991, petitioner was facing trial for
offences punishable under Section 147, 447, 427 IPC.
2. When this fact surfaced during police verification, services of
the petitioner were terminated when he was still on probation.
3. Conceding that the petitioner has furnished a wrong
information, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
decision reported as JT 2011 (3) SC 484 Commissioner of Police &
Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar wherein the Supreme Court has held that
young people often commit indiscretion and the same requires to
be condoned especially when the offences are not grave.
4. Per contra, we have the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of
the Supreme Court reported as 2010 (2) SCC 169 Kamal Nayan
Mishra vs. State of MP & Ors. which takes the view that in matters
pertaining to public employment, probity is of the highest degree.
One may have committed an act of indiscretion in the past but
must truthfully declare the same at the time of initial recruitment.
5. The latter decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner has not noticed the earlier
decision.
6. We need not go into the issue as to which decision binds us
for the reason we are of the opinion that the unfortunate
circumstance of the instant writ petition not being decided for 13
years would compel us to dismiss the same for the reason the
delay in this Court is a result of docket explosion in this Court and
for which nobody can be blamed. But, the petitioner has to take
the blame for having suppressed relevant information, in fact
having furnished a false information. Today, after 13 years, we
wonder what would be left in the petitioner to serve as a constable.
He had not even completed his training by the time his services
were terminated. He has not been performing his morning and
evening drills, which he would have, if he was a constable, and this
would have kept him physically fit. As of today, learned counsel
for the petitioner tells us that the petitioner is aged about 39
years. He is past the prime of his life and even if we were to direct
that the petitioner be taken on duty, he would hardly be able to
perform the assiduous duties of a constable.
7. Highlighting that the petitioner is to shoulder the
responsibility of the blame, having deliberately furnished wrong
information, and notwithstanding there being a plausible view in
his favour, taken by 2 Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, but we
find 2 equally Hon'ble Judges taking a view to the contrary.
8. We decline relief as prayed for and dismiss the writ petition,
but refrain from imposing any costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011
dk
