Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052154
CWP-1433-2019 2024:PHHC:052154 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(232) CWP-1433-2019
Date of Decision : April 18, 2024
Suresh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Amandeep Bidhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
29.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) by which, the appointment of the petitioner to
the post of Patwari has been cancelled on the ground that the information
qua the criminal case being faced by the petitioner, which information
required to be submitted along with the application form was suppressed by
the petitioner.
2. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the
issue in hand.
3. The petitioner competed for the post of Patwari as advertised
vide Advertisement No.7/2015 dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) and was
ultimately selected on the said post in September 2017. Thereafter, the
petitioner was directed to fill up an attestation form in compliance of para 7
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052154
of the appointment letter with correct details wherein, the petitioner
mentioned that he has not or is not facing any criminal proceedings. The
petitioner joined and underwent the training at Patwar training school.
Thereafter, the respondents came to know that on the date when the
petitioner competed and was selected for the post in question, there was an
FIR No.268 dated 15.11.2015 which was registered against the petitioner
under Section 491 and 420 of the IPC was pending against the petitioner
and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-7),
the appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled and the petitioner
was relieved from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner
never suppressed any information though, he concedes the factum that at the
time when the petitioner competed for the post, the FIR for violating
Sections 491/420 of the IPC was pending against him. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further argues that once, the petitioner has been acquitted of
the said allegation though subsequent to the appointment, the acquittal
means that the petitioner was not guilty of the allegations alleged in the FIR
hence, the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1430
of 2007 titled as Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar,
decided on 17.03.2011, in Civil Appeal No.7106 of 2011 titled as Ram
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 19.08.2011 and in Civil
Appeal NO.5902 of 2012 titled as Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 22.02.2024, to contend that even if the information was
not disclosed at the time of competing for a post in question, the
appointment given cannot be cancelled.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052154
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that once the information of the criminal case being faced by the petitioner
at the relevant time has been withheld, it is clear that the petitioner was not
truthful at the time of seeking appointment to the post in question and had
mislead the authorities concerned to mean that there is no criminal case
being faced by the petitioner at the time of seeking appointment. Learned
counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2006 titled as
Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, decided on
29.07.2013 to say that any information qua the pendency of the criminal
cases, if withheld, so as to adjudge the character and antecedents of the job
seeker or suitability, the suppression of the information itself amount to
moral turpitude and the employer has right to terminate the services of such
employee.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought the
application form of the petitioner in the Court today.
9. From the application form, it is clear that the petitioner has
mentioned that he is not facing any criminal proceedings. That being the
actual position qua the information supplied by the petitioner, it is clear that
the petitioner has suppressed the actual facts qua the criminal case being
faced by him and that too under Section 420 of the IPC.
10. The only question which needs to be adjudicated is whether the
suppression of the information by a candidate, will give right to the
Department to terminate the services of the said candidate or not. The
judgments which are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052154
petitioner cannot come to the rescue so as to seek the setting aside of the
impugned order. In Ravindra Kumar's case (supra), the facts were
different as the employee therein had already been acquitted of the criminal
case at the time of seeking appointment, which was not disclosed keeping in
view the performa available hence, as in the present case at the time of
seeking appointment, the petitioner at the time of seeking the appointment
was still facing the criminal case and that too alleged violation of Section
420 of the IPC, the judgment in Ravindra Kumar's case (supra) will not be
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. With regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra), the benefit was given to Sandeep
Kumar on the ground that he was not facing serious offence like murder,
dacoity or rape. In the present case, the petitioner was facing allegation of
fraud which reflects upon the moral of an employee hence, was a serious
offence therefore, the benefit given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra), will not be available to the petitioner in
the present case.
12. Though in the case of Ram Kumar's (supra), the benefit was
given but in a subsequent judgment in Devendra Kumar's case (supra),
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the
information sought was with a view to adjudge the character and
antecedents of a job seeker and his suitability to continue and non-supply of
the said information itself amounts to moral turpitude, in view of the
subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Devendra
Kumar's case (supra), no benefit of judgment in Ram Kumar's case
(supra) can be given to the petitioner. Once the petitioner was facing the
allegation of fraud, which is serious allegation and reflects upon the moral
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052154
of the employee, the judgment in Devendra Kumar's case (supra), will be
applicable so as to decline the benefit. The relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is as under:-
" 10. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by
misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The
question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post.
The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from
suppressing the information of such pendency. The case
pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but
suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral
turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression
of material information. In that eventuality, the service
becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no
further trial or the person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.
22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on
the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of
the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment,
wherein the individual is required to furnish information about
criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the
incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this
regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without
prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary
by the competent authority."
13. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. Dismissed.
April 18, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
