Manvir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board
2012 Latest Caselaw 1017 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.02.2012

+       WP(C) 870/2012

MANVIR SINGH                                                   ... Petitioner

                                         versus

DELHI JAL BOARD                                                ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners          : Mr Achal Chhabra
For the Respondent           : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 1932/2012

        Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 870/2012

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby

his Original Application No. 2615/2009 was dismissed. By virtue of the

said Original Application, the petitioner had challenged the order of penalty

of disengagement from the muster roll dated 28.07.2009.

2. The petitioner was engaged as a peon-cum-AMR on the muster roll

on compassionate ground by virtue of an order dated 07.07.2008. His

engagement was subject to the verification of character and past

antecedents and educational and caste certificates. The petitioner also had

to submit an attestation form. The questions asked from him in the

attestation form at serial No. 12 (i) (a), (b) and (c) were as follows:-

        "(a)    Have you ever been arrested?                 Yes/No
         (b)    Have you ever been prosecuted?               Yes/No
         (c)    Have you ever been kept under detention?     Yes/No"

To all these questions, as to whether he had ever been arrested, as to

whether he had ever been prosecuted and as to whether he had ever been

kept under detention, the petitioner answered 'No'. However, it is an

admitted fact that he was in police custody from 29.05.2005 to 03.06.2005

and subsequently, he was in judicial custody for one year on account of his

involvement in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 58/2005 under

Section 363/306/302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is obvious that the petitioner had given false answers to the

questions referred to above. Consequent thereupon, an in-house enquiry

had been conducted, which confirmed the aforesaid facts. The petitioner

was heard in-person, where he accepted the fact that he had filled the

attestation form in the manner indicated above. However, he took the plea

before the Tribunal that he did not know English and that he had got the

form filled by someone else, who committed the mistake.

4. However, the Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, came

to the conclusion that the argument that the petitioner did not know English

did not hold any water inasmuch as all the other questions had also been

answered by the petitioner which were in English. The petitioner had also

taken a plea that he was under a mistaken belief that inasmuch as he had

been acquitted by the time he had filled in the attestation form, he was

required to answer the questions mentioned above in the negative. This

explanation was not accepted by the Tribunal. And rightly so, because each

of the questions clearly referred to the applicant's entire past life. This is

apparent from the use of the words "ever been arrested", "ever been

prosecuted" and "ever been kept under detention".

5. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The

Tribunal, in our view, rightly considered that the crucial issue was not with

regard to his acquittal but with regard to the fact that he had given a false

declaration in respect of his arrest and detention in connection with a

serious criminal case such as that of murder. In any event, we see no

perversity in the impugned order. As such, we cannot interfere with the

decision of the Tribunal.

This writ petition is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 14, 2012 SR