Arvind Kumar vs D.G., Headquarters, C.R.P.F. & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3318 MP

                                                                     1
                                   IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                     ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                       WRIT PETITION No. 881 of 2003

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  ARVIND KUMAR, S/O RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA,
                                  AGED A22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PHOOP, WARD NO.2,
                                  DISTT. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                  (NONE)

                                  AND
                                  1.    DIRECTOR     GENERAL,     HEADQUARTERS,
                                        CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, NEW DELHI.

                                  2.    DEPUTY    INSPECTOR   GENERAL CENTRAL
                                        RESERVE POLICE FORCE BHAGRASLA BHOPAL
                                        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  3.    ASSISTANT   COMMANDANT       (TRAINING)
                                        CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE BHAGRASIA
                                        BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY SMT. KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCATE)

                                        Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                  following:
                                                                      ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of order dated 31/01/2003 passed by Dy. Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force whereby petitioner who was appointed as Constable (GD) was removed from Signature Not Verified SAN

the service for furnishing incorrect information in the verification form in para- Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.24 11:31:41 IST 12 in regard to his arrest, prosecution, detention or bound down/fined,

convicted of a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission.

Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits Dy. Collector for Collector, Bhind had verified this fact to the Dy. Inspector General, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Bhopal that a case Crime No.167/98 was registered at Police Station, Phoop, Distt. Bhind under Sections 324, 323, 34 of IPC in which petitioner was acquitted on the basis of a compromise on 28/02/2002. He has suppressed this fact in his verification form.

Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this High Court in W.A.

No.581/2006 (Union of India and others Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh), submits that Division Bench of this Court has considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 so also Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 14 SCC 709. In para-38.4 in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"38.4. 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted :

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been

Signature Not Verified recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty SAN

offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.24 11:31:41 IST

unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore

such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

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."

It is also dealt with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick (Civil Appeal No.2754/2022) wherein in para-32 it is held as under :

"32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his

services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case.

However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing Signature Not Verified SAN such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.24 11:31:41 IST ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not

supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services."

Thus, placing reliance on these judgments, Hon'ble Division Bench has refused to show indulgence and set aside the termination order. Same ratio will be available to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and Dilip Kumar Mallick (supra) so also the Division Bench of this High Court in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), no ground to show indulgence in the matter.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.02.24 11:31:41 IST