Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Ratanlal Ahirwar on 14 June, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 360 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW
DELHI
2. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 1-
TECHNICAL TRAINING REGIMENT 1-
SIGNAL TRAINING CENTRE, PIN 91124
3. THE MAJOR ADJUDITANT OR
COMMANDING OFFICER, TECHINCAL
TRAINING REGIMENT 1-SIGNAL
TRAINING CENTRE, PIN 901124
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
RATANLAL AHIRWAR S/O HARIDAYAL
AHIRWAR, ARMY NO.15679370 H RANK/TRADE
RECT/TER-II, R/O VILLAGE KAKWAHI POST
KAKWAHI, TAHSIL PRITHVIPUR DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI SHASHANK UPADHYAY, SHRI R.S. PATEL, SHRI
ASHIRVAD CHATURVEDI, SHRI CHARAN SINGH JHARIA AND
SHRI VIKAS JYOTSHI - ADVOCATES - ABSENT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
2
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 06.11.2006 in allowing the Writ Petition
No.15349 of 2005 whereby the writ petitioner was directed to be
reinstated into service with full back wages, the respondent-Union of
India is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Combatant Recruit (Soldier) after facing the
recruitment process on 22.08.2002; however, he was discharged from
service on 08.05.2005 on receipt of an adverse verification report from the
civil authorities as he made a false declaration in Column 8 of Enrolment
Form and Question No.15 of Verification Roll of Combatant Recruit at the
time of enrolling on 09.01.2003.
3. The order of discharge was assailed by the writ petitioner by filing
a petition which was allowed vide impugned order herein. The Writ Court
considered the fact that the factum of registration of an FIR was not in the
knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he submitted the Character
Verification Form on 09.01.2003, therefore, the information which is
given by him in the Verification Form could not be said to be incorrect.
Apart from the same, the petitioner has been acquitted from the offences
vide judgment dated 30.06.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Orchha District Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.369 of 2003.
4. Challenge to the aforesaid order was made on the ground that the
writ petitioner not only misled the authorities by giving incorrect
information in the verification form but also tried to mislead this Court.
The factum of registration of a criminal case was very well in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
knowledge of the writ petitioner as he has filed an anticipatory bail
application which was considered and dismissed by the trial Court vide
order dated 28.10.2002. A criminal case was registered against the writ
petitioner for the offences under Section 406 and 420 read with 34 of IPC
at Police Station Jeron District Tikamgarh at Crime No.119/2002. The
aforesaid fact was very well in his knowledge. The character form which
was submitted at the time of enrollment on 19.01.2003, in Column 8 and
in Question No.15 thereof, he has given wrong information to the
authorities. The specific ground was taken by the respondents-Union of
India by filing a detailed return to the writ petition but the same was not
considered by the Writ Court in proper perspective and the writ petition
was allowed directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service despite the
fact that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the material information in
his character antecedent form. Hence, the appeal has been filed.
5. Despite notice being served, no one has appeared on behalf of the
writ petitioner i.e. respondent herein.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
7. The record reflects that the recruitment for the post of Combatant
Recruit (Soldier) was started in the year 2002. The writ petitioner was
permitted to undergo the physical as well as medical tests and after being
declared qualified in the aforesaid, he was asked to fill the enrolment form
and character verification form. The same was filled by the writ petitioner
on 09.01.2003. In Column 8 and Question No.15 of the aforesaid forms,
the petitioner has written 'No' with respect to the criminal antecedents.
The order sheet of the trial Court dated 28.10.2002 reflects that the writ
petitioner was aware of registration of a criminal case against him. He has
filed anticipatory bail application for the offences under Section 406 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
420 read with 34 of IPC registered as Crime No.119 of 2002 at Police
Station Jeron District Tikamgarh.
8. The aforesaid facts clearly reflects that the factum of registration of
criminal case was in the knowledge of the petitioner. He has suppressed
the material information from the authorities and has tried to seek
appointment on the post of Combatant Recruit (Soldier) in a disciplined
force like Army.
9. The law with respect to seeking appointment by suppressing the
material information i.e. registration of a criminal case was considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of
India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein certain guidelines have been framed.
The same reads as follows:
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain
and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. 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.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
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
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
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.
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.
38.5. 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.
38.6. 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.
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.
38.8. 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.
38.9. 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.
38.10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid guidelines, it is apparently clear
that it is up to the authorities to consider the case for grant of appointment
in case the person is having criminal history. Suppression of information
from the authorities for seeking an appointment is also considered by the
authorities and they were having every right to dispense with the service.
11. The facts clearly show suppression of material information by the
petitioner while filling up the enrollment form and character verification
form on 09.01.2003. Under these circumstances, an attempt was made to
enter into an employment by suppressing the factum of registration of a
criminal case. Hence, the authorities were well justified in passing the
order of discharge of the petitioner. The Writ Court committed an error in
not appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the case despite being specifically
mentioned in the return filed by the respondent and in allowing the writ
petition. No relief could have been extended to the writ petitioner as he
has suppressed the material information with respect to previous criminal
antecedents.
12. In view of the aforesaid, there is sufficient material available on
record to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. The impugned
order dated 06.11.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.15349 of 2005 is
unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
13. The appeal filed by the Union of India is, thus, allowed. No order
as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 6/20/2023
1:36:29 PM
