Ex.Sweeper Ramvir Singh vs Uoi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4644 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Decision: August 06, 2012

+                      W.P.(C) 4685/2012

      EX.SWEEPER RAMVIR SINGH            ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.Narender Sharma, Advocate.

                       versus

      UOI & ANR.                        ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.9693/2012 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 4685/2012

1. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance copy being served says that the writ petition be dismissed in limine for the reason the petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that when he was offered employment as a 'Sweeper' in CRPF, while filling up the enrollment form, as per column 12-A whereof he was required to disclose: Whether he was ever an accused for having committed an offence, the petitioner wrote in the negative. Counsel highlights that in a matter relating to public employment, past antecedents are very important. As per learned counsel, if a person suppresses relevant information having a bearing on the antecedents and the character, the person concerned would lose the right to public employment.

2. As a general statement, what is stated by learned counsel for the respondents may be correct. But it has to be understood with reference to public employment where the person concerned renders a service which brings the person into interface with the public or which requires the person to deal with pubic issues, be it by way of policy or by executive action. But, if the public employment is to perform the menial job of sweeping floors and cleaning toilets, we wonder what relevance said aspect of the matter would have to the employment.

3. The petitioner sought employment to the lowest rung in CRPF i.e. as a sweeper. He was offered employment and was required to fill up the enrolment form somewhere in the month of July 2008. Column 12-A of the enrolment form required petitioner to disclose whether he was ever charged for having committed an offence. He wrote: 'No'. This is admittedly incorrect. When this was detected, and that was when police verification was got done, on March 06, 2010 the petitioner was removed from service. Departmental appeal was rejected on June 10, 2010. Review remedy sought did not yield the benefit when the review was rejected on February 10, 2011.

4. Petitioner does not dispute that he was named as an accused in FIR No.112/2006 for offences punishable under Section 323/324/504/34 IPC PS Koop. But, vide order dated September 09, 2006 passed by the learned CJM Bhind, was acquitted.

5. The petitioner claims, and for which we have no reasons to doubt, he misread the question as if he was to inform whether he was currently an accused. The petitioner

claims that since he had been acquitted he thought that he ought to have written 'No' against the column concerned.

6. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioner comes from the marginalized section of the society. He seeks employment as a sweeper. He is 8th class pass. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 2008 when he was offered employment, he was 24 years old. In the year 2006, he was aged 22 years.

7. In the decision reported as 2011 (4) SCC 644 Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Sandeep Kumar, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of compassion when acts of indiscretion are committed by young people. In said case, Sandeep Kumar, aged 20 years had concealed that he was an accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC. The post to which he was seeking appointment was that of a Head Constable in Delhi Police. Appointment being cancelled for having supplied wrong information, was held to be an unjustified act.

8. In the decision dated August 25, 2010 in WP(C) No.2068/2010 Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. v. Robin Singh, a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted that a person, who may not be a juvenile, and would be treated as a major in law, should not be denied public employment for indiscreet acts which do not attract moral turpitude; highlighting that though a person above the age of 18 years would be treated as a major i.e. not a juvenile, but such a person, not being tampered with experience of life, needs to be treated with compassion. It was highlighted therein that research shows that criminality is bred if a person who commits minor offences is ostracized by society and is denied public employment. The

decision highlights that petty offences and especially the ones which are non-cognizable have to be treated in a separate category with respect to the offenders.

9. Thus, we allow the writ petition and quash the order terminating petitioner's service, requiring petitioner to be reinstated forthwith. But, we deny wages for the period post petitioner's service being terminated till reinstatement, which shall be done within a period of six weeks from today.

10. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 06, 2012 dk