Jharkhand High Court
Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope vs The Union Of India Through ... on 15 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6600 of 2014
Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope, son of Sri Sukra Mahto,
Resident of Village: Khora Bhauwa Toli, P.O. Khora, P.S. & District
Gumla ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi, P.O. + P.S. : New Delhi, District :New Delhi
2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New
Delhi, P.O. + P.S. ; CG.O. Complex, B/2, New Delhi.
3. Sri R.K. Mishra, The Inspector General of Police Jharkhand
Sector, Tek. Headquarter at Latehar, C.R.P.F, Tiril, P.O. & P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F.
Sembo, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F.,
Sembo, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
---
19/15.03.2022 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate.
2. Heard Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.
3. This writ petition was initially filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 11.09.2014 as contained in Annexure - 1
whereby the respondent no.5 had terminated the services of the
petitioner. During the pendency of the present case, the appeal filed
by the petitioner was dismissed and the same was challenged before
this Court by filing Interlocutory application which was allowed and
consequently a further prayer has been incorporated in the present
case for setting aside the appellate order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure
- 3) passed by respondent no.3 whereby the appeal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the
impugned orders has submitted that the impugned order of termination
has been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice
and the appellate authority has also not considered this aspect of the
matter properly. The learned counsel has also submitted that the
petitioner is not governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary
Service) Rules, as the petitioner was not appointed in temporary
service as defined under the said Rules and therefore the exercise of
power under Section 5 (1) of the aforesaid Rule is itself illegal. The
learned counsel while challenging the impugned order with regard to
violation of principle of natural justice has submitted that no
opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and therefore
the impugned order is ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. The learned counsel has referred to judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh
Vs. Union of India) and has referred to para 35 onwards to submit
that in case of suppression or false information also, the principle of
nature justice is required to be followed and that the employer has to
act on due consideration of Rules/ instruction.
5. Learned counsel has further referred to the supplementary
counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the instant case and has
submitted that the respondents have themselves filed a policy
guideline dated 01.02.2012 wherein it has been mentioned that if after
recruitment, it comes to the notice of the recruiting authority and
found from the verification report received from the district authorities
or otherwise that there has been suppression, the candidature /
appointment of such persons will be cancelled. He also submits that
the same Clause - 1 is also coupled with the policy that in case the
candidate has already been appointed, while cancelling / terminating
the appointment, the principle of natural justice shall be followed and
opportunity of being heard would be accorded to the candidate. The
learned counsel submits that the principle of natural justice has
admittedly not been followed in the present case, the policy guideline
itself has not been followed and therefore, the impugned orders are fit
to be set aside and matter is fit to be remanded to the concerned
authority to take a fresh decision.
6. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this
Court in W.P.(S) No.2626 of 2014 decided on 22.04.2019 and submits
that the aforesaid clause of the policy decision dated 01.02.2012 has
been taken into consideration and judgment passed in the case of
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) has also been considered and
thereafter the matter has been remitted back to the authority to comply
the principle of natural justice by observing that the original authority
as well as the appellate authority were not aware of the existence of
Circular and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, during the
course of argument, as per the list of dates furnished by the learned
counsel for the petitioner himself, the petitioner was appointed on
20.08.2013 in the rank of RT/GD, Constable, Ranchi and was
terminated by the Commandant on 11.09.2014; earlier on 27.03.2009,
F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner for alleged offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and 290 of Indian Penal Code and
under Section 47 (A) of Excise Act and charge was framed on
18.08.2010 against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468/34 and
under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. It is not in dispute that though
the petitioner was acquitted on 28.02.2015, but certainly on the date of
appointment on 20.08.2013, the criminal case was pending and the
charge was already framed.
7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has also referred to the form which was filled by the
petitioner and annexed along with the counter-affidavit, to submit that
in the two columns i.e., column 12 (a) and (b) of the Form, the
petitioner has clearly denied there being any criminal case pending
against the petitioner and the allegation is that the petitioner had
furnished false information regarding pending criminal case. During
the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the information
regarding case pending against the petitioner was suppressed by the
petitioner while filling up the form. However, the learned counsel for
the petitioner insisted that the principle of natural justice was required
to be followed in spite of such admitted position.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while
opposing the prayer has submitted that even as per the policy
guideline dated 01.02.2012, it has been specifically provided in
column 3 that the candidate will not be considered for recruitment if:
he is involved in case / arrest in connection with offence mentioned in
Annexure - A and Annexure A inter alia refers to Sections 379 to 462
and also 465 to 489 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel
submits that admittedly on the date of filling up the forms, the fact
about pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner since 2009
and the charge having been framed in 2010, was suppressed. She
refers to the counter-affidavit to submit that the petitioner was
inducted awaiting report from the district authorities and was sent for
training and as per the counter-affidavit itself, the petitioner was not
permitted to complete the training and he was called back. The learned
counsel submits that suppression of criminal case while induction in
uniformed force is viewed very seriously even in the case of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh
Case (supra). The learned counsel has referred to two judgments
passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.378 of 2015 (Chandra Prakash
Sing Vs. Union of India) as well as the judgment passed in L.P.A.
No.193 of 2017 (Rohitash ChoudharyVs. Union of India) as annexed
with the supplementary counter affidavit to submit that the latter
judgment has also considered Avtar Singh (supra) case and denied
relief to the appellant.
9. The learned counsel has also referred to a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Abhijit Singh Pawar dated 26.11.2018 passed in Civil Appeal
No.11356 of 2018 and submits that in this particular case also, the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Avtar Singh
(supra) has been considered and in that case on the date when the
applicant had applied, the criminal case was pending. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also considered the nature of offence in which the
incumbent was involved and also the nature of acquittal. She submits
that even if the petitioner has been acquitted subsequently by giving
benefit of doubt, but the fact remains that on the date of filling up of
application form, he had made material suppression regarding
pendency of criminal case against him and acquittal giving benefit of
doubt does not help the petitioner in any manner. The learned counsel
submits that the appellate authority has considered the grievance of
the petitioner and has passed a reasoned order and the same also does
not call for any interference. The learned counsel has also referred to
C.R.P.F Rules 16 and 108 to submit that the person inducted has to
undergo the period of probation and confirmation and Rule 16 clearly
provides that all members of the force shall be enrolled for a period of
3 years and during this period of engagement, they shall be liable to
discharge, at any time, on one month's notice by the appointing
authority. It also provides that at the end of the period, those not given
substantive status, shall be considered for quasi permanency under the
provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules,
1965.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted
that the judgement which has been relied upon by the learned counsel
for the respondents and annexed along with the supplementary counter
affidavit i.e., L.P.A. No.378 of 2015 was rendered prior to
pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh and does
not take into consideration the 2012 Policy decision of the respondents
and the latter judgment passed in L.P.A. No.193 of 2017 though
considers the judgment passed in the case of Avtar Singh, but the
2012 guideline / policy decision has not been considered. Learned
counsel submits that in such circumstances, the aforesaid two
judgments passed in L.P.As do not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case and the case is to be essentially seen in the
light of the policy guidelines of 2012 which clearly provides that
principle of natural justice is required to be followed.
11. Arguments are concluded.
12. Post this case for judgment on 11.04.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
