Delhi High Court
Yashkant Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 July, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : July 11, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 9009/2015
YASHKANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Successfully clearing the recruitment process for being appointed as a
constable in Railway Protection Force, the petitioner filled up the enrolment
form and against the relevant column which required him to state whether he
was an accused in any criminal case or an FIR was registered naming him as
an accused, the petitioner responded in the negative.
2. The Railway Protection Force proceeded to verify the antecedents of
the petitioner and addressed a letter to the District Magistrate of the area
wherein petitioner has his permanent aboard. Pending report the petitioner
was inducted into service.
3. The District Magistrate informed that an FIR had been registered at
PS Mirhachi (UP) for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B read
with Section 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which
the petitioner was named as an accused.
4. Based on the information received vide impugned order dated July 29,
2015 the petitioner was informed that he was discharged from service
immediately.
5. Case of the petitioner is that concerning the FIR in question it
pertained to the death of his sister-in-law who died on March 24, 2012. As
per the petitioner the death was natural and after investigation the police
submitted a closure report on June 16, 2013 which was accepted by the
learned Magistrate concerning the death of petitioner's sister-in-law and as
regards the allegations in the FIR by the parents of the girl attracting Section
498A IPC as also Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on a settlement
between the petitioner's brother and parents and the parents of his sister-in-
law, the matter was closed.
6. In a nut shell, according to the petitioner he was not aware of the FIR
being registered for the reason neither the police ever apprehended him nor
served him with any notice requiring him to join at the investigation.
7. In the counter affidavit filed the respondents have simply reiterated
that the petitioner withheld relevant information concerning his character i.e.
he being an accused in the FIR in question.
8. In the counter affidavit the averments made in the writ petition that
the petitioner was not aware of the FIR in question being registered and he
being an accused and the police neither apprehended him nor summoned
him have not been denied.
9. The counter affidavit has not denied that after investigating the police
ultimately field a closure report.
10. Suffice it to say that unless a person is aware of a fact concerning
him, non-disclosure of said fact by him would not amount to any intentional
suppression. In a similar circumstance allowing W.P.(C) No.7564/2015
Abhimanyu Pande Vs. UOI & Ors. on August 11, 2015 a Division Bench of
this Court set aside the order of discharge requiring the petitioner therein to
be reinstated in service and re-inducted into training for the balance period.
11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
12. Order dated July 29, 2015 is quashed. The petitioner shall be
reinstated in service and if he has not completed training he would be
permitted to complete the same. The petitioner would be entitled to arrears
of salary and all other consequential benefits including increments and
seniority.
13. Compliance shall be made within 6 weeks from today.
14. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
JULY 11, 2016
mamta
