Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Sudhir Kumar on 24 June, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.274 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10840 of 2019
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of Indian, New Delhi
2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, NISA, Hyderabad
3. The D.I.G. (Training) Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarters, New
Delhi
4. The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, RTC, Deoli
5. The AIG/Rectt., CISF Head Quarters, New Delhi
6. Commandant, CISF, RTC, Deoli
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Sudhir Kumar Son of Dinesh Kumar, Resident of Village- Sonauat, P.o.-
Gaya, Sonauat, P.s.- Muffasil, District- Gaya, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Punam Kumari Singh, C.G.C.
Mr. Vaibhav Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Saurav Kumar Suman, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 24-06-2024
Appellants have assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 28.02.2020 passed in CWJC No. 10840 of
2019. Respondent Sudhir Kumar, son of Dinesh Kumar was a
candidate for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The Staff Selection
Commission invited application for selection and appointment
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
2/7
to the post of Constable (GD). Respondent Sudhir Kumar was a
candidate for the selection and appointment to the post of
Constable (GD). He was selected and offered appointment by
the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro vide communication
dated 22.03.2017. He was asked to report for the post on
01.05.2017
followed by attending basic training which was
scheduled to be commenced with effect from 08.05.2017. He
had undergone training. Later on, appellants noticed that
respondent Sudhir Kumar was involved in a criminal case. To
that effect a communication has been made on 18.03.2019 by
the Commandant, CISF, RTC, Deoli to the effect that he was
found unsuitable for appointment in CISF in the light of 19 th
Screening Committee assembled at the office of the CISF
Headquarters, New Delhi on 31.12.2018.
2. Respondent questioned the validity of impugned
action of the appellants in CWJC No. 10220 of 2018 and it was
disposed of on 19.02.2019 asking the petitioner to make fresh
representation before the competent authority within a period of
eight weeks. Thereafter, the appellants have taken fresh decision
which was the subject matter of CWJC No. 10840 of 2019
decided on 28.02.2020 in favour of the respondent Sudhir
Kumar. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
doubt there is a finding that it is a case of remand. However, the
same has been side tracked and proceeded to allow the petition
in favour of the respondent.
3. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether
respondent Sudhir Kumar had suppressed any material relating
to initiation of criminal proceedings or not. No doubt, as on the
date of his appointment he was involved in criminal proceedings
and it has been disclosed or not disclosed is a factual aspects
which is required to be adjudicated by the competent authority.
The second issue is if respondent Sudhir Kumar has been
acquitted in the criminal case, in such an event what would be
the impact in the event of providing employment by the
appellants. On this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others
decided on 26.09.2022 reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 in
para 15 it is observed as under:-
"15. The learned ASG also placed
strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda,
(2022) 1 SCC 1, more particularly, in the following
observations as under:
"17. In view of the above, in the facts of
the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar
Singh case [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471:
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], it is clear that the employer is
having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per
government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the
decision for induction of the candidate in employment.
Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of
heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts
available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case,
truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made
by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate."
4. In the light of earlier Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision in the case of Union of India and Others v. Methu
Meda and in the light of principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court from time to time including in the case of Avtar
Singh it was the competent authority who has to take a decision
whether candidate has suppressed material information or not.
Even assuming that such a suppression is ignorable and what
would be the impact of acquittal was required to be examined
by the competent authority. Therefore, it is a case of remand and
to that extent order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.02.2020
passed in CWJC No. 10840 of 2019 stands modified. It is also
to be noted that impugned action of the appellants in CWJC No.
10840 of 2019 it is a bereft of reasons. It is necessary to
reproduce the communication dated 18.03.2019 vide Annexure-
10 and it reads as under:-
REGISTERED/AD
mi egkfujh{kd dk dk;kZy;
dsUnzh; vkS/kksfxd lqj{kk cy
¼x`g ea=ky;½
vkjVhlh] nsoyh&304804
ftyk% Vksad ¼jkt-½
E-Mail ID: [email protected]
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
Fax No.- 01434-232199
i=kad%bZ&37023@{ksizd¼ns½@izf'k@55TH/CBG(19)2019/3160
fnukad- 18 March 2019
lsok esa]
Roll No. 3206007005
Sudhir Kumar
S/O Sh. Dinesh Kumar
Vill:- Sonauat,
PO:- Goga,
PS: Muffasil Gaya,
Distt. Gaya (Bihar)
Pin code:- 805131
Mob No. 8292190796
Subject: Decision of Competent Authority in
respect of the candidates who were not allowed
to join in CISF as they were involved in
Criminal Case 19th Sanding Screening
Committee Report (09th sitting): Regarding.
Reference offer of appointment letter No.E-
31035/BSL(B)/ADM-III (DSR)/ Rectt./ (CT-15)/
OOA/ 2017/221 dated 22.03.2017.
02. Consequent upon having criminal background
in the past, your case for appointment to the post of
Constable/GD in CISF has been examined by the
19th Standing Screening Committee assembled at
the Office of the CISF HQrs New Delhi on
31.12.2018 and decided that Roll No. 3206007005
Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar "Un-
Suitable for appointment in CISF".
03. Hence, provisional offer of appointment issued
to you by the Commandant/Chairman CISF
Recruitment Centre CISF Unit BSL Bokaro vide
letter No.E-31035/ BSL(B)/ ADM-III (DSR)/
Rectt. / (CT-15)/ OOA/ 2017/ 221 dated 22.03.2017
is hereby cancelled.
dek.MsaV
dsvkSlqc vkjVhlh] nsoyh
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
Copy to:-
1. The Inspector General/NS, For kind information w.r.t.
CISF New Delhi AIG/R&S CISF HQrs New
Delhi Order No (1053) dated
01.03.2019
2. AIG/R&S CISF HQrs New -do-
Delhi
3- Dossier, For necessary action
5. Reading of para-2 and 3 it is not supported by
material information read with the reasoning in the light of
Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions cited supra. Therefore, the
concerned authority/competent authority is hereby directed to
revisit to the case in hand and proceed to pass a detailed
speaking order. In this regard, respondent Sudhir Kumar is
hereby directed to furnish a detailed representation along with
the judicial pronouncements within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of respondent's
representation along with the judicial pronouncements the
competent authority-Appellant is hereby directed to pass a
detailed speaking order in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court
observations made in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav read
with the Methu Meda (cited supra) and communicate the
decision to the respondent Sudhir Kumar within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the respondent's
Patna High Court L.P.A No.274 of 2020 dt.24-06-2024
representation. The competent authority is also hereby directed
to take note of subsequent decision in the case of Ravindra
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.
5902 of 2012 decided on 22.02.2024.
6. Accordingly, the present LPA allowed in part.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 01.07.2024
Transmission Date N.A.
