Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jayhind vs Union Of India And Others on 9 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001892
CWP-10999-2022 1 2024:PHHC:001892
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-10999-2022
Date of Decision:09.01.2024
JAYHIND ......... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate with
Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents No.1 to 4-UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 04.03.2022 whereby offer of appointment dated 13.11.2021
made to petitioner for the post of Constable in I.T.B.P. has been
cancelled.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of
Constable/Tradesman(Cook) and he was offered appointment on
13.11.2021. The petitioner served notice to respondents on 07.02.2022
pointing out that an FIR No.40 dated 23.04.2020 was registered against
him and it is still pending. The petitioner was called upon to show
cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner
filed reply to aforesaid notice. The respondent vide order dated
04.03.2022 terminated/cancelled the appointment letter of petitioner.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001892
CWP-10999-2022 2 2024:PHHC:001892
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, he was added
subsequently in the FIR and no specific role has not attributed to him,
thus, no case is made out against the petitioner. The authority was
supposed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of finding
recorded by a three judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 741.
4. Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel for the
respondents-UOI, submits that petitioner pursuant to the appointment
letter submitted an application wherein he disclosed that an FIR is
pending against the petitioner, thus, in view of the guidelines of
Ministry of Home Affairs, a show cause notice was served upon the
petitioner. The FIR registered against the petitioner is of serious
offence and petitioner concealed the registration of above-said FIR in
the Form of Enrollment, hence, order was rightly passed by the
authority.
To buttress his contention, he relies upon judgment of
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Chetan Jeff 2022
SCC OnLine SC 597, Union of India Vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1370 and Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India
and others, 2022 SCC Online SCC 1300.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and with their able assistance perused the record.
6. From the perusal of Enrollment form, it comes out that
there was a particular column enjoining the petitioner to disclose
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001892
CWP-10999-2022 3 2024:PHHC:001892
factum of criminal proceedings. Question 12 of the enrollment form
alongwith reply reads as:
"12. (a) Have you ever been arrested? No
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted? --
(c) Have you ever been kept under
detentioned or imprisoned? No
(h) Are you facing any prosecution in any
Court in India or aboard? -----"
7. From the perusal of above quoted question of the
enrollment form, it is quite evident that petitioner was bound to
disclose factum of pending criminal trial. A two judge Bench
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav's case
(supra) has dismissed appeal after considering a three judge Bench
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) as
well as number of other judgments. In the said case, the appellant had
not disclosed pendency of FIR against him.
In the case in hand, in the aforesaid FIR, the police report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted on 20.04.2020 wherein
petitioner was arrayed as an accused and petitioner submitted his
enrollment form on 05.08.2021 wherein he failed to disclose the
factum of pending criminal proceedings against him. The case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Satish Chandra Yadav's case (supra). The competent authority
has rejected claim of the petitioner considering the fact that petitioner
has failed to disclose his true particulars. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Satish Chandra Yadav's case (supra) has noticed scope of
interference in such cases and has come to conclusion that unless it is
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001892
CWP-10999-2022 4 2024:PHHC:001892
shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist or substantial
and grave injustice have been done, the Court would not exercise its
overriding power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the present case, there is no allegation of malafide on
the part of respondent and act of respondent does not amount to
substantial and grave injustice. In view of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav's case (supra), this Court
does not find it appropriate to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned orders.
9. Dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
09.01.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001892
4 of 4
