Delhi High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 July, 2014

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 6034/2013
      SANDEEP KUMAR                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Mr. K.G. Sharma, Advocate

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR                        ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC and
                                       Ms.Gurjinder Kaur, Advocate
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
                     ORDER

%                     16.07.2014
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks to set aside and

quash the order dated 19/21 August, 2013 and to direct respondent No.2

to appoint the petitioner forthwith against the offered post of constable in

CAPFS.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no concealment on the

part of the petitioner so as to suppress his alleged involvement in the

criminal complaint registered against him vide FIR No. 83/2011 under

Sections 323 & 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, as the relevant

documents relating to the said criminal case were filed by the petitioner at

the time of submission of the attestation form. Counsel further submits

that the petitioner had applied to seek his appointment for the post of

Constable (GD) in CAPFS- 2011-2012 in SC Category, and the online

application was filed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the

said application was submitted by the petitioner in February 2011 while

the criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his family

members on 29th April 2011 vide FIR No. 83/2011, which would make it

clear that as on the date of submission of the said form, there was no

criminal case pending against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that

the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case on 11 th August

2011 and in the order, the learned trial court categorically observed that

there is nothing incriminating against the accused in the said case and the

offences against the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Respondent in their letter dated 16th March 2013 have called upon the

petitioner to submit a legible copy of the final report of the police, which

was submitted by the police in the court and this letter clearly refers to the

documents placed on record by the petitioner alongwith his attestation

form explicitly clarifying that on scrutiny of petitioner's documents it

was found that a criminal case vide FIR No.83 dated 29.4.2011 under

Section 323, 325 and 34 IPC was registered against him in the Police

Station Khol. Distt. Rewari (Haryana). This letter also refers to the

acquittal of the petitioner from the said criminal charge by the order

passed by Mr. Lokesh Gupta, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari vide

order dated 11th August 2011.

3. Based on the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the petitioner

submits that there was no suppression or concealment on the part of the

petitioner and withholding of any information with regard to the

registration of FIR or pendency of criminal case against the petitioner and

in fact it was the petitioner who himself annexed the documents so as to

apprise the respondent with the complete disclosure of facts at the time of

submission of attestation form.

4. Per contra, Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that in the attestation form, in the relevant Column

No.12, petitioner failed to furnish the relevant information and therefore,

there is clear suppression on the part of the petitioner. Counsel further

submits that this raises a doubt on the part of the petitioner in not

disclosing his involvement in the criminal case registered against him

vide FIR No. 83/2011 under Section 323, 325 and 34 IPC.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant record.

6. The core issue before this Court is whether the candidature of the

petitioner who had made a clean breast of his involvement in a criminal

case by mentioning this fact at the time of submission of his attestation

form; who was provisionally selected subject to verification of his

antecedents and who was subsequently acquitted/discharged in the

criminal case, could be cancelled on the ground that he is not found

suitable for appointment to the post of constable because of his

involvement in a criminal case.

7. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in

CAPFS-2011-12, in the category of Scheduled Caste with a preference

for State of Haryana in the month of February 2011. The petitioner had

appeared in the written examination conducted by the Staff Selection

Commission on 5th June 2011 and indisputably, he was declared

successful in the said exam. The petitioner had also qualified the physical

test and with that his name appeared in the list of selected candidates at

serial No.2683 in the select list. The petitioner had also received the offer

of appointment vide letter dated 23rd January 2013 for the said post from

the office of Chairman/Senior Commandant, CISF, Ministry of Home

Affairs, 5th RB, Ghaziabad, UP-301014, directing the petitioner to report

to the Principal, CISF MPRTC ANATPURA (BEHROR) , Distt. Alwar,

Rajasthan for joining the post and to attend basic training, scheduled to

commence from 4th February 2013. On 2nd February 2013, petitioner had

reported to the said office of CISF and also submitted the duly filled

requisite documents including attestation form, antecedent certificate and

certificate of character in accordance with the format notified by the

CISF. The petitioner was also asked to get some of his documents

attested from the concerned SHO and SDM and then to join the training

programme on 4th February 2013. The petitioner fulfilled all the said

requirements and attended the basic training programme on 4 th February

2013 but to his utter shock, on 6th February 2013 he was sent back and

was told not to continue with the training programme. He was also asked

to bring the certified copy of the FIR and the order of the learned trial

court in respect of the criminal case registered against him. The petitioner

immediately furnished the said documents but was still was not allowed

to complete his training programme.

8. Vide letter dated 9th March 2013, the petitioner took up the matter

with the Principal of Training School and also with DIG (Training) as to

why he was not permitted to participate in the training programme despite

the fact that he had already submitted all the requisite documents. In

response to the said letter, vide letter dated 16th March 2013, the office of

the Assistant Inspector, General (Training Sector), Hyderabad asked the

petitioner to submit a legible copy of the final report filed by the police in

trial court within a period of ten days. In compliance thereof, the

petitioner submitted judgment of the trial court vide his letter dated 22nd

March 2013. Vide letter dated 19th/21st August 2013, the Respondent had

cancelled the offer of appointment, earlier given to him on the ground of

his involvement in the criminal case. Feeling aggrieved by the

cancellation of his offer of appointment, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition.

9. Indisputably, the verification of the character and antecedents of

the candidate is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected

candidate is suitable for the post he had applied for. It is indubitable that

employment in a police force or in para military services, the candidate

must possess qualities like high level of physical endurance and most

importantly should possess the aspect of integrity, as such person cannot

be expected to be criminal by nature, or having any criminal

background/antecedent. The character, integrity and antecedents of a

candidate aspiring to join it, definitely assume importance. The standards

expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from

the one who intends to serve in any other services. The truthful disclosure

of complete facts as per the requirement of various columns of the

application form cannot be compromised with.

10. There has been divergent view of coordinate Benches of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of grant of relief to such candidates

who deliberately suppressed the information at the time of their

recruitment with regard to their involvement in a criminal case and it is

because of such conflicting views taken by various Benches of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment titled as Jainendra

Singh vs. State of UP Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home (2012) 8 SCC 748. The

decision of the Larger Bench on the said issue may not ponder us so far

the present case is concerned as here the scenario is different.

11. In the case at hand, there was no criminal case pending against the

petitioner as on the date of submission of his application in February,

2011. The FIR against the petitioner under Section 323, 325 and 34 IPC

was registered on 29.04.2011 and he was acquitted by the trial court vide

its judgment dated 11.08.2011. On perusal of the said judgment passed by

the learned trial court, one can find that the trial court clearly observed

that there was nothing incriminating against the accused (petitioner

herein) in the present case and the offences against the petitioner are not

proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.

12. There was an offer of appointment made to the petitioner to report

on his duty and join the training programme on 2.2.2013 and by that

date, the petitioner was already acquitted in the said criminal case. At the

time when the petitioner had reported to join the training programme, he

had furnished the requisite documents thereby informing the respondents

about the registration of said criminal case against him and copy of the

charge sheet was also filed by the petitioner. It is on the submission of the

said documents by the petitioner, the Respondent vide letter dated 16 th

March 2013, called upon the petitioner to submit the legible copy of the

final report as was filed by the police in the court. Para 2 of the said letter

is reproduced as under:-

"On scrutiny of your documents, it is found that a criminal case vide FIR No. 83 dated 29.04.2011uns

323, 325, 341 IPC was registered against him in the police Station Khol, Distt. Rewari (Haryana). Further you have been acquitted from the charges by the Hon'ble Court of Shri Lokesh Gupta, JMIC Rewari on 11.8.2001."

13. The contents of the aforesaid letter dated 16 th March 2013 clearly

reveal that the petitioner has filed those documents and it is through

these documents, the Respondent got to know about the involvement of

the petitioner in a criminal case vide FIR No.83 and about his acquittal

from the court of Mr. Lokesh Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, vide order

dated 11.08.2011.

14. From the aforesaid facts the position has become abundantly clear

that there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner as on the

date of his online submission of his application seeking appointment on

the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF's and on the date of his recruitment,

he already stood acquitted from the criminal charges vide orders dated

11.08.2011.

15. In the case of Jainendra Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court

considered the fact of appointment obtained by fraud and held in para

31.1 to 31.10 as under:

31.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.

31.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.

31.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.

31.4. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.

31.5. Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.

31.6. The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false' information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.

31.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be

seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.

31.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement the the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.

31.9. An employee in the uniformed service pre- supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

31.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.

16. The factual matrix of the aforesaid case is completely at variance

to that of the case at hand. None of the above ingredients satisfy the case

at hand. Here, the petitioner has categorically disclosed of him being

involved in a criminal case at the very instance of filing his attestation

form which was within the relevant time. The punishment imposed on

the petitioner was on account of his involvement in a criminal matter

however, the same was never suppressed by the petitioner. There is no

iota of doubt that furnishing of false information or suppression of any

information would be a disqualification and is likely to render him unfit

for employment.

17. In the present case, the petitioner was honest and truthful in

placing the complete facts before the concerned authorities with regard to