Gordhan Ram vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 857 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14556/2018

Gordhan Ram S/o Shri Ghewar Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Village Tigra (Ashapur), Post Khersalwa, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi

2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, C.i.s.c. Headquarter, Block No. 13 - Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003

3. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Cs Headquarter, Bhilai (Chattisgarh)

4. Commandant, Office Of Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Secl. C.i.s.f. Unit, Bilaspur, Post Kusmuda Colliery, District Kota (Chhatisgarh)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deeplip Kawadia through VC

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

18/01/2022

The facts of the case are that petitioner applied for the post

of Constable in CAPF (Central Armed Police Forces) and after

successful clearance of written examination as well as medical

examination he was offered appointment. The petitioner joined

his services on 04.04.2017 but on 20.06.2018, a termination

notice was served on him and vide that notice it was

(2 of 5) [CW-14556/2018]

communicated that he would be deemed to be out of services

after completion of a period of one month from the date of notice.

It is the case of the petitioner that he received the said

notice on 24.07.2018 only as he was on leave during the period.

Soon after receipt of the notice on 24.07.2018, he moved

representation dated 26.07.2018 to the Inspector General, CISF.

The said representation was termed to be an appeal under the

provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

Vide order dated 23.08.2018, respondent-authority dismissed the

appeal of the petitioner and terminated him from services.

Meanwhile vide order dated 28.09.2018, the appellate authority

dismissed the appeal of petitioner and affirmed the termination

notice dated 20.06.2018. Against the order dated 20.06.2018 the

present writ petition has been filed.

A preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the

respondents that order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the appellate

authority has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same

having become final, in absence of a challenge to the same, the

present writ petition is not maintainable.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice

dated 20.06.2018 was received by him on 24.07.2018 only and

soon after that he moved the representation on 26.07.2018. As

the same was not decided for considerable period of time and no

information of any decision thereupon was given to him, he

preferred the present writ petition before this Court. It is the

submission of counsel for the petitioner that the fact of decision of

the appeal came to his knowledge only after the reply having been

filed by the respondents in the present writ petition.

(3 of 5) [CW-14556/2018]

It is clear on record that although the fact of decision of the

appeal had come to the knowledge of the petitioner, the same has

not been challenged and therefore the same has attained finality.

Coming to the merits of the case, counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that it was not a case of non-disclosure of any

criminal antecedents on his part. In the criminal proceedings

initiated against him he was discharged way back in the year 2014

and that was an hon'ble acquittal from all the aspects. Counsel

further submitted that even in the police verification report dated

27.03.2017, the fact of the criminal proceedings having initiated

against him and he being discharged in the same were on record

before the Department and after consideration of the same only,

he had been offered appointment. Therefore it cannot be

concluded that the Department was unaware of the criminal

antecedents before issuing the appointment order. Moreover, the

same was an hon'ble acquittal by all terms and therefore his

termination on the ground of criminal proceedings having initiated

against him in past cannot be held to be valid.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India &

Ors. (Special Leave Petition [C] No.20525/2011) and a judgment

passed by Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs.

Kamar Singh Meena (D.S. Special Appeal Writ No.990/2016).

Per contra counsel for the respondents has submitted that

the petitioner has been terminated on basis of the decision as

reached by the Standing Screening Committee which is final

authority on that aspect. He has submitted that in the matter, an

inquiry had been conducted and the matter had been

recommended to the Standing Screening Committee which has

(4 of 5) [CW-14556/2018]

reached to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be continued

in services of CISF. Counsel submitted that the decision of

Standing Screening Committee being non-malafide and being

based on cogent reasons cannot be interfered with.

Counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Union Territory, Chandigarh

Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. [(2018) 1 SCC

797].

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The facts in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) were almost

akin to the facts of the present case and while deciding the same,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside."

While considering the earlier judgments passed on the issue,

the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed as under:

"13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person

(5 of 5) [CW-14556/2018]

having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character."

In view of the ratio as relied upon in Pradeep Kumar's case

(supra), this Court does not find any ground of interference with

the termination notice dated 20.06.2018 and further termination

order dated 23.08.2018.

So far as the ratio laid down in Avtar Singh's case (supra) is

concerned, the same is also of no help to the petitioner as Avtar

Singh's case also holds that even if 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 view of the above observations, the present writ petition

stands dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability as well as

on merits.

(REKHA BORANA),J

20-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)