Kulbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6413 P&H

CWP No.24042 of 2018 (O&M)                                   -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                           CWP No.24042 of 2018(O&M)
                                           Reserved on:01.06.2022
                                           Date of Decision.08.07.2022

Kulbir Singh                                                       ...Petitioner
                                           Vs
State of Punjab and others                                         ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present: Mr. PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

-.-

JAISHREE THAKUR J.

1. The petitioner herein has approached this Court under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance a writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing order dated 18.01.2017 (P-3) vide which respondent

No.4 has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post

of Constable, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant

appointment to the petitioner to the post of Constable as per his merit.

2. The facts as noticed from the paper book are that the petitioner

had applied for the post of Constable in the Punjab Armed Police and was

selected, however, vide letter dated 18.01.2017, candidature of the petitioner

stood rejected on the ground of pendency of FIR No.90 dated 31.05.2014

under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC. It is further stated in the

abovesaid letter that though the petitioner has been declared innocent upon

inquiry dated 20.07.2015 conducted by Station House Officer, Police Station,

Ferozepur Cantt yet the final decision qua acceptance of the aforesaid inquiry

report/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be taken by the court of

competent jurisdiction and therefore, rejected the candidature of the petitioner.

1 of 9

It is further submitted that the aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of

the Army Recruiting Office C/o 56 APO against 31 candidates including the

petitioner, who appeared in the recruitment rallies conducted by them and

during the said recruitment rallies, it came forth that these candidates produced

matriculation certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad

when they had already appeared and cleared their matriculation examination

from the Punjab School Education Board. It was noticed that though

candidate's name, father's name, mother's name given in the certificates issued

by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were matching with that of the

certificates issued by the Punjab School Education Board yet the date of birth

was different and therefore, it could be an attempt by these candidates to

reduce their age in the mark sheet issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Allahabad to make them eligible for enrolment into the Army. An

investigation was sought in the matter so that genuine candidates could be sent

for training. An inquiry was conducted in the matter and vide inquiry report

dated 20.07.2015 the Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur,

the petitioner and other candidates were found innocent and action was

recommended against 11 agents, who though received certificates issued by

the Punjab School Education Board from the candidates yet before the Army

Recruiting Office, they produced certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan in order to get them selected. Thereafter, the petitioner in the year

2016 had applied for the post of Constable in the Punjab Police but since the

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been presented, the candidature of the

petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.4 vide order dated 18.01.2017,

on the ground that the Court would decide whether the inquiry

report/investigation report qua petitioner is to be accepted or not.

2 of 9

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner had approached this Court vide CRM-M No.3476 of 2017 titled as

Kulbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others for issuance of direction to the

respondents therein to submit final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the

court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents therein had appeared and

filed the status report admitting the innocence of the petitioner in the FIR in

question. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to complete the

investigation at the earliest and if the petitioner was not required then

appropriate action be taken in this regard at the earliest, preferably within a

period of two months. It was further argued that as per status report filed by

SSP, Ferozepur dated 23.05.2022, after completion of investigation qua Shiv

Kumar, Shamsher Singh, Amarjit Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Bhupinder Singh,

challan has been presented against them and petitioner has been declared

innocent. Therefore, since the petitioner has been declared innocent both in

the initial inquiry conducted by SHO, Police Station, Ferozepur Cantt as well

as in the final report submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction, the

petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Constable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-

State would submit that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered as

on police verification it was found out that there was an FIR pending and until

and unless the cancellation report was not accepted, no appointment can be

offered. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed about the

pendency of the FIR against him. He relied upon the Standing Order No.1 of

2016 issued under Section 4 (d) and Section 45(e) of the Punjab Police Act,

2007 which lays down detailed guidelines for the recruitment of Constables

(both Male & Female) including Ex-servicemen, except recruitment against

3% posts reserved for Sportspersons) in both the District Police Cadre as well

3 of 9

as the Armed Police Cadre of Punjab Police as well as the entire process of

recruitment and detailed provisions under which the process of recruitment

will be completed. It is argued that verification of character and background of

a candidate is of vital important in so far as the recruitment to police

department is concerned. Rule 12.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934

provides that the recruits shall be of good character and great care shall be

taken in selecting men of a type suitable for Police Service from the candidates

presenting themselves for enrolment. Therefore, selection of the candidate is

always subject to the verification of his antecedents in the verification process

and if anything adverse is found against the candidate during the verification

process, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected summarily.

5. It was further argued that verification of the character and

antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected

candidate is suitable to a post under the State and since the FIR in question is

still in existence and the petitioner has not been declared innocent by the

competent court of law, he is not entitled for appointment to the post of

Constable in the Police Department, it being a disciplined force. He relied

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India

and others Vs. Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that if

a person is acquitted giving him benefit of doubt, from charge of offence

involving moral turpitude or because witnesses turned hostile, it would not

automatically entitle him for employment, that too in disciplined force.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

paper book with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. In the

present case, the FIR was registered at the behest of Army Recruiting Office in

order to make an inquiry regarding submitting false documents at the best of

some aspiring candidates including the petitioner. An inquiry was conducted

4 of 9

by the SHO, Police Station, Ferozepur Cantt. wherein the petitioner has been

declared innocent vide inquiry report dated 20.07.2015 and thereafter, in the

year 2016, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable. It was pointed out

that the petitioner had not disclosed about the pendency of the FIR and

therefore would not be entitled to be considered for appointment. The only

plea taken in the written statement is that the appointment could not be offered

on account of the FIR and cancellation report not having been accepted.

7. In the case at hand, petitioner has been declared innocent in the

inquiry conducted by the SHO, Police Station, Ferozepur Cantt. on 20.07.2015

and thereafter in the year 2016, the petitioner had applied for the post of

Constable in Police Department. As on date of filing in the application form,

the petitioner had not been summoned as an accused and in fact had been

found to be innocent after a detailed inquiry was held. Even in the status report

filed by SSP, Ferozepur by way of affidavit dated 23.05.2022, it has been

pointed out that investigation has been completed and challan has been

presented against certain persons/agents, who produced the false certificates

before the Army Recruiting Office in order to get the aspiring candidates

selected in the Army including the petitioner. On inquiry, it came forth that

though matriculation certificates issued by Punjab School Education Board

were taken from the candidates by the agents but before the Army Recruiting

Office, false documents issued by Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were

produced in order to get benefit in age. In the final report presented under

section 173 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has been kept in column no 2.

8. The question of suppression of information and submitting false

information in the verification form as to the question of having been

criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to the pendency of a criminal case, was

5 of 9

referred to the larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union

of India 2016 (8) SCC 471 and the said reference was answered as follows:-

"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and

reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we

summarize our conclusion thus:

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.

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.

The employer shall take into consideration the Government

orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of

taking the decision.

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 recourse

appropriate to the case may be adopted : -

In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded,

such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty 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.

6 of 9

Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in

nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the

employee.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding

Departmental inquiry would be necessary before passing order of

7 of 9

termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or

submitting false information in verification form.

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 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.

Before a person is held guilty of suppression veri or suggestion

falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would reveal that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that 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 and 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. In the instant case, the petitioner

has been declared innocent at the very initial stage of inquiry and in the final

report submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. also, he has

been declared as innocent and challan has been presented against other

persons. It is also interesting to note that in the written statement the only plea

for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that the final report has not

been accepted. Therefore, the respondents ought to have taken into

8 of 9

consideration the aforesaid special circumstances while rejecting the

candidature of the petitioner.

10. The judgement relied upon the counsel appearing for the respondents

in Methu Meda's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts of the case as that

was the case where the candidate was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

11. Therefore, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court deems it a fit case to direct the respondent authorities to take into

consideration the special circumstances of the case where the petitioner has

been declared innocent vide inquiry report dated 20.07.2015 that was

conducted before submitting application by the petitioner and even in the final

report submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The instant

petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The

respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for

appointment to the post of Constable in view of the facts and circumstances as

noticed above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order and if upon verification of antecedents of the

petitioner, he is found of good character, appointment letter be issued to the

petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. He would be allowed all

consequential benefits other than back wages.

12. Needless to say, appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to the

acceptance of the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the court

of competent jurisdiction and outcome of the trial.

                                                      (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                           JUDGE
July 08, 2022
Pankaj*             Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                    Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                   9 of 9