Jatin Kumar Panjia vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5388 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                           W.A. No.827 of 2021


            Jatin Kumar Panjia                         ....           Appellant
                                                    Mr. Ashok Das, Advocate

                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha and others                 ....      Respondents
                                                        Mr. A.P. Das, A.S.C.


                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY


                                          ORDER

08.05.2023 Order No.

01. Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 26th August 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WPC(OAC) No.4378 of 2012 filed by the Appellant questioning the order dated 9th October 2007 passed by the Commandant, 4th Odisha State Armed Police [OSAP] (SS) Battalion, Malkanagiri by which the Appellant who was engaged as a Sepoy in the OSAP was removed from service.

2. The Appellant had also sought a mandamus to the Director General of Police to reinstate the Appellant in service in view of a

judgment dated 5th September 2012 passed by the JMFC, Nabarangpur in G.R. Case No.409 of 2004/T.R. No.146 of 2011.

3. After undergoing the process of selection, the Appellant was appointed as a Sepoy on 25th December, 2006. While he was still undergoing training, he was removed from the service by the aforementioned order since during the verification of his character and antecedents, it was found that he was involved in the aforementioned criminal case which was, at the relevant point in time, sub-judice.

4. On 18th October 2007, the Appellant filed a representation praying for reinstatement as he was not actually involved in the case although his name was found in the FIR. According to the Appellant, even after his acquittal on 5th September 2012, nothing was done to recall his order of removal from service and therefore, he filed OA No.4378 of 2012 in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT). After the abolition of the OAT, the matter was transferred to the Court and registered as a writ petition with the aforementioned number.

5. In a reply filed to the said petition, the Respondent-authorities herein took the stand that the information regarding his involvement in the criminal case was suppressed by the Appellant and therefore invoking Rule 673 (c) read with 668 of the Orissa Police Rules, he was removed from service. It was also denied that any representation had been received from the Appellant.

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, who also conducted the case before the learned Single Judge, reiterated his submissions before the learned Single Judge, viz., the Appellant was not actually involved in the criminal case and this had been taken note of by the JMFC while acquitting him. He claimed that the Appellant was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case and therefore, omitted to mention it in the application form. Such omission, according to him, was not deliberate.

7. It was also argued by Mr. Das, as was argued before the learned Single Judge, that since the Appellant was a Sepoy, the Orissa Police Rules has no application and according to him, he would be governed by the Orissa Special Armed Police Act, 1946 and the Rules thereunder as well as the Orissa Special Armed Police Battalion and Orissa State Armed Police (Special Security) Battalion Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sepoys) Order, 2006 (2006 Order).

8. The learned Single Judge has noted that in Verification Roll dated 25th December 2006 in Sl No.7, the Appellant had stated that he had neither been an accused in a criminal case nor had he ever been in prison. This was at a time when GR Case No.409 of 2004 was still pending against the Appellant. Again, at Sl No.19 of the Application Form dated 6th November 2006, the Appellant gave a false reply to the question whether he was involved in any criminal case.

9. Learned Single Judge has also noted that Rules 11 and 13 of the Orissa Special Armed Police Rule, 1953 as well as Clause 13 (1) of the 2006 Order lay emphasis on the verification of antecedents of candidates. Further, the 2006 Order itself was made in terms of the Police Act, 1861.

10. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Das and having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, the Court is not satisfied that any ground has been made out for interference. As far as the suppression of the material facts is concerned, although Mr. Das claims that the Appellant was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case, no such plea appears to have been taken before the learned Single Judge. When it was put to Mr. Das that the Appellant could not have possibly been acquitted without actually appearing in the criminal court, he volunteered that it was only after he was removed from service that he appeared in the criminal court and was thereafter acquitted.

11. The Court is unable to accept the above plea. The offences for which he was tried were under Sections 451, 323, 294, 506 read with 34 IPC. Some of the said offences were cognizable and it is unlikely that the Appellant would not have been arrested and would not have been enlarged on bail for those offences. There was no way that the Appellant could not have been aware of the criminal case. If it was the Appellant's contention about his not being aware, the burden was on him, in the above circumstances to prove it. The Appellant did not make any effort to do so.

12. Under Rule 673 read with Rule 668 of the Orissa Police Rules, the suppression of such a material fact has serious consequences. The Verification Roll prepared in terms of Rule 673 makes it clear that any statement regarding character of a person is found to be false and then he shall be removed from service.

13. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that in the present case, the ground on which the Appellant was removed from service was clearly made out from the facts of the case. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded that the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India AIR 2016 SC 3598 would support the plea of the Appellant that there should have been a full-fledged enquiry prior to his removal from service. With the fact of suppression of pendency of the criminal case being undisputed, the holding of an enquiry would have been an 'empty formality'.

14. For the same reasons, the Court finds that the mere nature of the offence being serious or not, would not determine the outcome of suppression of a material fact in an application form for a post in a disciplined force like the Police. Consequently, the decision of the Supreme Court dated 19th August 2011 in CA No.7106 of 2011 (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P.) is also distinguishable on facts. The Court finds that the other decisions relied on i.e., the decision dated 17th March 2011 in CA No.1430 of 2007 (Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bibrata Biswas v. Union of India AIR OnLine 2019 Cal 796 is also not helpful to the Appellant.

15. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is unable to find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. No.2011 of 2021

16. For the reasons stated, the I.A. is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Guin Digitally signed by SUBASH KUMAR SUBASH KUMAR GUIN GUIN Date: 2023.05.09 10:58:05 +05'30'