Delhi High Court
Balram Meena vs Railway Protection Force And Anr. on 6 December, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26th November, 2019
Decided on: 6th December, 2019
WP(C) 10240/2017
BALRAM MEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S.Dalal with Ms. T.Banerjee
and Mr.Manu Kharra, Advocates.
versus
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Jitendra K.Singh, Standing
Counsel with Mr.Amit Kumar and
Mr.Saurav Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 22nd August, 2017 passed by the
Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force („RPF‟)
terminating his services as Constable.
2. This is the third round of litigation.
3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2011 the Petitioner applied for the
post of Constable. He was duly called for in the selection and was appointed
as Constable by a letter dated 1st October, 2014. By an order dated 15th June,
2015 his selection stood cancelled on the ground that he had suppressed
information concerning his involvement in the criminal case (Case No.162
of 2004) under Sections 147/323/341/149 IPC at Police Station Rainni,
District Alwar, Rajasthan and in respect of which a charge-sheet had been
filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate („ACJM‟)
Rajgarh on 21st June, 2004.
4. In terms of the judgment dated 24th January, 2012, the ACJM Rajgarh
acquitted the Petitioner and others giving them the benefit of doubt under
Sections 147 and 149 IPC. As regards the other offences under Sections 323
and 341 IPC, he acquitted the Petitioner and others on account of
„compromise‟. After it was noticed that he had suppressed the above facts
and thereby contravened the Railway Board‟s letter dated 16th November,
2005 and the employment notification dated 23rd February, 2011, the
Petitioner was discharged from training by the discharge order dated 15th
June, 2015.
5. Initially, the Petitioner challenged the above order dated 15th June, 2015
by filing W.P.(C) 6648 of 2015 in this Court. By an order dated 10th March,
2016, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the RPF to
issue a Show Cause Notice („SCN‟) to the Petitioner.
6. Pursuant thereto, an SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 16th April, 2016
to which he replied on 18th May, 2016. Having examined the said reply, the
Competent Authority („CA‟) found the earlier discharge order to be valid
and a memorandum dated 17th June, 2016 was issued terminating the
services of the Petitioner on the ground that he had concealed and
suppressed his involvement in the criminal case.
7. This order was again challenged by the writ petition being W.P. (C) 7694
of 2016. This was disposed of on 15th May, 2017 by this Court, setting aside
the discharge order dated 17th June, 2016 and remanding it to the
Respondents for a fresh decision within a period of 12 weeks. The
Respondents were required to examine the Petitioner‟s case in light of the
judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. Pursuant
thereto, a fresh decision has been taken on 22nd August, 2017, reiterating the
earlier decision after examining the case of the Petitioner in light of the
aforementioned decision in Avtar Singh (supra). That decision has been
challenged in the present petition.
8. The allegation against the Petitioner and others in the aforementioned
Case No.162 of 2004 was that they had stopped Rattan Singh and his
daughter Reena Kumari, while they were returning after her examination,
and inappropriately behaved with Reena Kumari.
9. What is significant is that the Petitioner has been acquitted of the offences
under Sections 147 and 149 IPC by being granted the benefit of doubt. This
was a case involving moral turpitude and would stand covered by paras
38.4.3 and 38.7 of the decision in Avtar Singh (supra), which read as under:
"38.4.3. 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.
......
38.7. 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
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper."
10. A perusal of the impugned order of the Respondent No. 2 reveals that
the Petitioner‟s case has been examined in light of the above observations of
the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh. It is seen that subsequent to the order of
this Court dated 15th May, 2017, on 17th August, 2017 the Petitioner was
even provided a personal hearing before the Chief Security Commissioner in
which he did not furnish a clear reply to the question of why he had
suppressed information regarding his involvement in a criminal case. Aside
from having accounted for the suppression by the Petitioner of the above
material fact and his refusal to explain such concealment, the impugned
order has also taken into consideration the nature of the charges in the
criminal case as well as the fact of non-disclosure of his previous
employment with the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in the attestation form.
11. The Court is satisfied that the impugned order is predicated on all
relevant facts and antecedents of the Petitioner. As such, the Court sees no
reason to interfere with it.
12. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed as
such.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 06, 2019
mw
