Delhi High Court
Baljit vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 September, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8586/2016
Date of decision: 20th September, 2017
BALJIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gulab Singh, Ms.Saroj Nahar,
Ms.Monika Nahar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Ms.Santwana,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
Baljit, the writ petitioner, upon selection, was issued offer of
appointment letter dated 10th October, 2013 and appointed as
Constable (GD) in the Central Industrial Security Force.
2. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was required and
asked to fill up the Attestation Form. One of the columns of this
form had required the petitioner to finish the following information;
(i) whether he had been arrested?;
(ii) whether he had been prosecuted?;
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 1
(iii) whether he had been kept under detention?;
(iv) whether he had been bound down?;
(v) whether he had been fined by Court of law?;
(vi) whether he had been convicted by a Court of law for any
offence? etc.
3. The petitioner had answered the questions in negative by
marking the word 'NO'.
4. Subsequently, on police verification it was learnt that the
petitioner with others was prosecuted in FIR no.142/2004 registered
under Sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at P.S.
Salhawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana, vide charge sheet filed in the
Sessions Court at Jhajjar. However, the petitioner and others were
acquitted vide judgment dated 7th November, 2005, as the witnesses
had turned hostile. In fact statements under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not required to be recorded.
5. The respondents vide letter dated 22nd November, 2013 asked
the petitioner to respond as he had a criminal background. He was
asked to submit relevant papers. The relevant portion of the said
letter reads as under:-
"Reference offer of appointment letter No.E-
32023/CISF/5RB/Rectt/CT/GD-2011-12/2013/440 dt.
th
10.10.2013 issued by the office of Sr.Comdt. CISF 5 Res.
Bn. Ghaziabad.
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 2
02. Since you are having criminal background in the
past and your case for appointment to the post of
Constable/GD in CISF is required to be examined by the
Standing Screening Committee. Hence, you are directed to
send copy of FIR, FR (Charge Sheet)and court judgment etc.
to this office at following address immediately, failing which,
it shall be presumed that you are not interested for your case.
The Dy. Inspector General,
CISF RTC Deoli,
PO : Deoli, distt. Tonk
(Rajasthan)-304 804"
6. The petitioner responded by submitting a copy of the charge
sheet and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Session Court.
7. These papers were placed before the Departmental Standing
Screening Committee for assessing petitioner's suitability.
8. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 2014, the petitioner
was informed as under:-
"02. Since, you are having criminal background in
the past, your case for appointment to the post of
Constable/GD in CISF has been examined by the 9th Standing
Screening Committee assembled at IG/NES Hqrs. Kolkata on
05.02.2014 and decided that Roll No.2201023468 Baljit S/o
Sh. Bhim Singh is "Not suitable for appointment in CISF.
03. Hence, provisional offer of appointment issued
upon you by the Sr. Comdt. CISF 5th Res. Bn. Ghaziabad
under his letter No.E-32023/CISF/5RB/Rectt/CT/GD-2011-
12/2013/440 dated 10.10.2013 is hereby cancelled."
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 3
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is asserted
that the petitioner had given false information in the attestation
form. The Standing Screening Committee had examined the
petitioner's case, in terms of the guidelines of the Ministry of Home
Affairs dated 1st February, 2012, a copy of which has been
enclosed, and has held that the petitioner was unsuitable to be
appointed as Constable (GD). Thus, the cancellation letter dated
31st May, 2014 was issued.
10. The petitioner's assertion is that he was falsely implicated
and, therefore, the witnesses had turned hostile. The petitioner was
acquitted in 2005.
11. We would notice that the date of birth of the petitioner as per
the application form is 12th January, 1993. The petitioner was
about 11 years of age on the date of occurrence, for which the
charge sheet was filed.
12. Further, the issue raised is covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8
SCC 471, wherein earlier judgments were considered and
thereafter, the following principles were summarized:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain
and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid
discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(i) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 4
(ii) While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if
any, while giving such information.
(iii) The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.
(iv) In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling of the application/verification
form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of
the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age
or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not
have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in
question, the employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it
is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer
may consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as
to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has
the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 5
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of
the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject
to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect
to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will
assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
or cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing
order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification
form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
Only such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for
but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in an objective manner while addressing
the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot
be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him."
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 6
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
31st May, 2014 cannot be sustained and has to be set aside for fresh
examination and decision by the Standing Screening Committee.
14. The other question relates to the delay and laches. The
present writ petition was filed on or about 5th September, 2016.
Thus, there is delay of more than 2 years in approaching the Court.
The petitioner comes from a rural background being a resident of
Village Ruoriwas in Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. He had approached an
Advocate, who had issued legal notice to the respondents dated 17 th
July, 2015. The respondents had responded vide communication
dated 28th August, 2015, rejecting the petitioner's prayer, observing
that his case had been considered as per Rules and policy. The
petitioner was found to be unsuitable.
15. On the question of delay and laches, we would only observe
that in case the petitioner is re-appointed, the respondents' shall
pass appropriate order with regard to the period from 31st May,
2014 till reinstatement.
16. We clarify that the Standing Screening Committee will apply
principles elucidated in Avtar Singh (supra) and also keep in mind
the age petitioner on the date of occurrence. The aforesaid exercise
would be completed by the Standing Screening Committee within a
period of 3 months from the date a copy of this order is received.
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 7
17. In case of any adverse order, it would be open to the
petitioner to question and challenge the same in accordance with
law.
18. The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Dasti to both the parties.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
'umang'
WP(C) 8586/2016 Page 8
