Telangana High Court

Nunavath Jagadeesh vs The Union Of India, Rep. By Its Prl ... on 25 April, 2023

Bench: E.V. Venugopal

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                WRIT PETITION No.21048 of 2018

ORDER:

1 Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Ms. Pallavi learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen

Kumar- Assistant Solicitor General of India.

2 Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings dated

28.12.2016 of the second respondent dismissing the appeal filed by

the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently prays to

direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as

Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police Force.

3 Petitioner asserts that he was provisionally selected for

appointment as Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police

Force upon the selection test conducted by Staff Selection

Commission. He reported to duty and underwent training with effect

from 01.04.2013. While so, on 22.07.2014 the petitioner was

terminated from service without following the rules and regulations

by issuance of notice under Rule 5 (1) of Central Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, basing on a false/acquitted case.

4 It is further submitted that the parents of the petitioner used

to consume ID liquor and that on 06.06.2008 the Excise police

implicated him in an excise offence vide PR No.1119/2007-2008.

However, after full fledged trial, the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem acquitted the petitioner of

the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014.

Except the said case there were no other allegations against him.

5 Aggrieved by the said termination order of the third

respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second

respondent on 17.08.2016 and the second respondent without

looking into the merits of the case and without giving reasons

straight away dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 28.12.2016.

Hence the present writ petition.

6 The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that as per

procedure the respondents verified the character and antecedents of

the petitioner with the District Collector, Khammam, which is the

native district of the petitioner. After thorough enquiry, the District

Collector, Khammam, vide letter dated 09.06.2014 intimated that

the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2008 as he was involved in an

excise offence vide Cr.No.1119/2007-08 under Sections 7(A) r/w

8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise

Station, Kothagudem of Khammam District and that a Calendar

Case is pending trial in the Court of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kothagudem, Khammam District. Though it is clearly

mentioned at Column No.12 in the Verification Form to mention

clearly about the involvement of the candidate in any criminal case

or whether any case is pending, ever arrested under any crime etc,.

the petitioner while filling the form No.25 (i.e. verification roll) at the

time of his appointment, has suppressed the facts regarding his

arrest and involvement in a criminal case and which is pending trial

before the First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem. Therefore, the

petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 22.07.2014

under the provision contained in Sub-Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary

Service) Rule, 1965 r/w Training Directorate Letter dated

21.02.2012 as the petitioner was found deliberately suppressed /

concealed the fact of his arrest, involvement in criminal case.

7 It is further submitted that the authorities have directed the

petitioner to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus

allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he

was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service

or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short

of one month.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was acquitted of the above said crime. The respondents

have construed his involvement in the said crime as well as his

conduct in not disclosing the same in the verification form during

the verification roll, as misconduct and terminated his services. The

learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the

petitioner was acquitted by the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem of the offence punishable

under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act,

1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, the case of the petitioner

deserves to be considered for reinstatement. In support of his

contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of

India (UOI)1 wherein it is held as under:

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.

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

1 (2016) 8 SCC 471

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 enquiry would be necessary before passing order of 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 suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.

9 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that furnishing of false information or suppression of any

factual information in the Verification Roll would be a

disqualification and is likely to be treated unfit for employment

under the Government. It is further contended that in the offer of

appointment it was clearly mentioned that on joining CRPF, the

petitioner will be governed by CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF Rules, 1955

and CCS (TCS) Rules, 1965 and that the services of the petitioner

may be terminated at any time on one month's notice and that on

the result of verification if any discrepancy with regard to date of

birth, education qualification, caste, community etc is found at a

later stage, the petitioner will be liable to be removed from service

forthwith. Since the petitioner deliberately suppressed the factum of

pendency of criminal case against him at the time of his joining into

service, he is not entitled to the relief sought for and the ratio laid

down in Avtar Singh case (1 supra) will not be applicable to the

facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly prayed

to dismiss the writ petition.

10 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested on

06.02.2008 as he was involved in an excise offence vide

Cr.No.1119/2007-08 under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise Station,

Kothagudem of Khammam District and that a Calendar Case was

pending trial in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Kothagudem, Khammam District by the date of his appointment.

11 Though the petitioner was bound to disclose about his

involvement in any criminal case or whether any case is pending or

ever arrested under any crime, as required in Form No.25 i.e.

Verification Form, the petitioner suppressed the same and he has

not given any acceptable reason for this.

12 It may be true that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence

punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995, vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, but it was

subsequent to his appointment and it is clear and admitted fact

that the said case was pending against him by the date of his

appointment i.e. 01.04.2013.

13 What is to be considered is that whether the petitioner has

disclosed about pendency of any criminal case as required in Form

No.25 or not. But the subsequent acquittal or conviction has no

relevance to decide the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has not

disclosed about pendency of criminal case against him in Form

No.25 and he has also not given any special circumstances for his

involvement in the said case. Therefore, the impugned action was

taken terminating his services since the action of the petitioner was

involving moral turpitude.

14 Coming to the applicability of the various guidelines given by

the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar Singh case (1 supra) to the present

case, the Hon'ble apex Court clearly 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. In the present case, the petitioner

has deliberately and willfully suppressed the factum of his arrest

and pendency of a criminal case against him under Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995.

15 In order to contend that he is entitled to the relief sought for

under the said judgment, the petitioner has not placed on record

any special circumstances under which he was forced to suppress

the factum of pendency of the criminal case against him.

16 The offence alleged against the petitioner was under Sections

7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The

punishment, if the accused is found guilty of the offence under the

above section was not less than one year but which may extend up

to five years and with fine which shall not be less than two lakhs for

the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs

for the second offence. Therefore, the offence alleged against the

petitioner was not trivial in nature. In the light of the above

discussion, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble apex Court in Avtar

Singh case (supra) does not come to rescue of the petitioner.

17 It is an admitted fact that on joining CRPF, every employee

will be governed by CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF Rules, 1955 and CCS

(TCS) Rules, 1965 and that the services of the employee may be

terminated at any time on one month's notice and that on the result

of verification if any discrepancy with regard to date of birth,

education qualification, caste, community etc is found at a later

stage, the employee will be liable to be removed from service

forthwith. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except

to concur with the finding/action taken by the respondent

authorities.

18 The next question to be taken into consideration is whether

the respondent authorities have followed the procedure laid down in

Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,

1965 scrupulously or not.

19 Rule 5 (1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,

1965, reads as under:

Rule 5 enables Government to dispense with the services of a temporary employee forthwith but does not provide for the forfeiture to Government of a similar amount when the employee does not give the requisite notice.

20 In the case on hand, as per the material placed before the

Court and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent

authorities, the authorities have directed the petitioner to claim a

sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the

period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them

immediately before the termination of his service or as the case may

be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

Therefore, on this aspect also the respondents have not violated the

provisions of the relevant Rules.

21 For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief

sought for by him and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be