WA/550/2016 of BALRAM SHUKLA, UTTAR PRADESH Vs PRL. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI AND 3 OTH on 31 December 2021

1. Union of lndia, Rep. [by ][its Principal Secretary, ][Ministry ][of ][Home ][Affairs, ][New]Delhi.2.ihe lnspector General of [Police,, Southern Sector C.R.P F.' Keshogiri']Hyderabad, A.P.?O6prtvl"ip".tor General [of Police,' Southern. Sector' C.R ][P F , Hyderabad,]A.P.4.Commandant, 141.BN [C.R.P.F. Hyderabad, ][O.t., ][-...*uaro*oENTS/REspoNDENrs]

Counsel for the Appellant: [SMT. RACHNA KUMARI]

Counsel for Respondent [No. 1: SRI N. RAJESHWAR ][RAO]

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR [GENERAL]

Counsel for Respondent [Nos. ][2 ][to ][4: ][GP ][FOR HOME]

The Court made the following: [ORDER]

THEON'BLE THE CHITF JUSTICE SATISH

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE N. TUKARAMJIV/RIT APPEAL No.55O of 2016

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble tte Chief Justice Satish Chandra Shdrlna)

The present writ appea.l is arising out of thejudgment dated 31 .03.2016 passed by the learned SingleJudge in W.P.No.2299t of 2Ot2.

The undisputed facts of the case revea_l that theappellant before this Court was appointed as Constablein the services of Centra-l Reserve police Force. However,in the verification Roll under Column 12-A, he hassuppressed the information regarding involvement in acriminal case by mentioning ,No,. In tl:osecircumstances, his services were put to an end by anorder dated 05.06.2005 against which an appeal waspreferred. The same was dismissed on 05.02.2006. Thelearned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge are reproduced as under:- "4. In the instant case, the petitioner herein wasappointed in the year 2OO3 as constable in the CentralReserved Police Force. In the verification Roll underColumn 72-A i.e., with regard to involvement inCriminal Cases, the petitioner herein admittediymentioned as 'No'. On the ground that the petitiEa{rherein falsely mentioned about his involvement in the \

criminal case, the [4d' ][rcspondent ][herein ][terminated]the petitioner from [the ][service.]

5. According to the [learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner herein, the said aspect [cannot ][be ][treated ][as]fatal as the [petitioner herein ][was ][acquitted ][of ][the]criminal charges subsequentlY'

6. This [question ][is ][no ][longer ][Res ][integra' ][lt ][the]case of B.RamaKrishna [Yadav ][and another ][Vs' ][The]of [Police and ][Another ][(2016(2) ][ALD]Superintendent 340), a full bench of [this ][Court ][at ][Paragraph ][Nos'11]and 12, heid as under:

"77. In this [backdrop, ][tDe ][would ][nou ][like to ][deal]tuith tlle [question ][thot ]falts for [our ][consideration']Suppression of [information ][bA ][the ][candidate]regarding his inuotuement [in ][a crtminat ][ccrse ][is ][one-]thing and whether [to appoint ][or to ][terminate ][such]person afler the information [of ][his ][inuolvement ][in ][a]ciminal is surlaced [is ][another. ][Similarlg, whether ][to]appoint such [person, ][who ][has ]fairly [disclosed ][the]inforrnation of [his ][inuoluement ][tn ][o ciminot ][case in]the application fomt, [is ][also ][a ][questiorL, ][uhich ][the]appointing authoritA [has to ][decrde ln other words, ][1l]is for the emploger/ [appointing ][autlLoitA ][to take ][a]call and. decide whether [such ][petson should ][be]appointed hauing [regard ][to ][uaious ]factors [that]could be takefl [into ][considerdtion']

77. I In the [present ][c(1se, ][we ][are ][consideing ][a]situation ttthere [there ][ll')cts ][suppression ][of]inJormation relating [to ][inuoluement ][in ][a ][ciminal]case bg th.e candidate. [Keeping ][thot ][in ][uietu ][and]Lnvtng regard to [tlg ][judgments ][of tlle ][Supreme]Court and tlle [pinciples a)lled ][out therein" ][ute ][are ][of]the opinion, if a [candidate ][uere ][to ][suPPress ][tle]information [relating ][to ][his ][tnuoluement ][in ][a ][ciminal]case and if it is [surfaced before appointment ][or ][at]the stage of ueification [of ][antecedents' ][more]particularlg when such an [informatioft ][was]specificalty [sought ]for, [it ][is ][open ][to the ][appointing]authoitA to denA [apPointntenl ][to ][or ][temttlote ][such]emplolTee.

72. Verifcatton [of character and ][antecedents ][is ][one]of the important features [in ][seruice ][juisprudence ][so]as to fi.nd out uhether [a ][se\ected ][cqndidate ][is]

\

s-uitable to the post. Hauing regard to th_eantecedents of a candidate, if appointing authoitgfinds [that ][it ][is ][not ][desirable ][to ]appoint such [person,]in parTtcular to a discipline force, it can denyfinds [that ][it ][is ][not ][desirable ][to ]appoint such [person,]in parTtcular to a discipline force, it can denyemployment or euen tenninate such person, ifoppointed, u.)ithin the shorrest possible time from theoppointed, u.)ithin the shorrest possible time from thedate of ueification of character and antecedents.?his has to be scruputously foltoued in case of?his has to be scruputously foltoued in case ofrecruitment tn poltce force, it being a disctpttnedforce. [As ][obserued ]bV the Supreme Courl itCommissioner of Police, Netu Dethi u. Mehar Shghforce. [As ][obserued ]bV the Supreme Courl itCommissioner of Police, Netu Dethi u. Mehar Shgh((2013) 7 SCC 685), peopte repose great Jctith andconf.dence in the poltce force, and therefore, theselected candidate must be of confid.ence,impeccable character and integitA. A person hauingciminal antecedents is, undoubtedlA, not fit in thiscategory, more particularlA u.)hen he hasstlppressed the informatton about his inuoluement incriminal case(s) irrespectiue of the fact LDhetller theciminal antecedents is, undoubtedlA, not fit in thiscategory, more particularlA u.)hen he hasstlppressed the informatton about his inuoluement incriminal case(s) irrespectiue of the fact LDhetller thecase uas pending or tle uas acEitted..'

7. In view of the ratio laid down in the abovereferred judgment, the petitioner herein is not entitledfor any relief from this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.

8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed_Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any,in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence.No order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in Avtar Singh v.Union of India (Special Leave petition (C) No.20525 of20i1, dated 21.07.2016) and her contention is that thematter deserves to be remanded back to the appointingauthority keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.Union of India (Special Leave petition (C) No.20525 of20i1, dated 21.07.2016) and her contention is that thematter deserves to be remanded back to the appointingauthority keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.

This Court has carefully [gone ][through the ][aforesaid]judgment. Paragraph 30 of the aforesaid [judgment]1Sreproduced as under:- "30. We have [noticed ][various ][decisions ][and ][tried to ][explain]and reconcile them [as ][far ][as ][possible. ][In ][view ][of ][aioresaid]discussion, we summarize [our conclusion ][thus:]

(1) lnformation [given ][to the ][etnployer ][by a candidate ][as ][to]conviction, acquittal or [a-rrest, ][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.

(21 While passing order [of ][termination ][of ][serzices ][or]cancellation of [candidature ][for ][giving false ][information' ][the]employer may take [notice of special circumstances ][of ][the ][case']if a;ry, while [giving such ][information.]

(3) The employer shall [take ][into ][consideration]thetheGovernment orders/ [insLructions ]/ [rules, ][applicable ][to]employee, at the [time ][of ][taking ][the decision']

(4) In case there is [suppression ][or ][false ][iniormation ][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 ttle [case ][may ][be ][adopted ][: ][-]

(a) 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, ][tlte]in its [discretion, ][ignore ][such]employer may, of [fact ][or ][false ][information ][by]suppression condoning the [lapSe.]

(b) Where conviction [has ][been recorded ][in]case which is not [trivial ][in nature, ][employer may]

cancel candidature or terminate services of theemployee.employee.

(c) If acquittal had atready been recorded ina case involving moral turpitude or offence ofheinous/serious nature, on technical groundand it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefitof reasonable doubt has been given, theemployer may consider a1l relevant factsavailable as to antecedents, and may takeappropriate decision as to the continuance of theemployee.

(5) In a case where the employee has made declarationtruthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still hasthe right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled toappoint the candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared incharacter verification form regarding pendency of a criminalcase of triviai nature, employer, in facts and circumstances ofthe case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject todecision o[ such case.

\7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respectto multiple pending cases such false information by itself willassume significance and an employer may pass appropriateorder cancelling candidature or terminating serl,ices asappointment of a person against whom multiple criminal caseswere pending may not be proper.

(8) If crimina.l case was pending but not known to thecandidate at the time of frlling the form, still it may haveadverse impact and the appointing authority would takedecision aJter considering the seriousness of the crime.(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holdingDepartmental enqulfy would be necessary before passingorder of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground ofsuppression or submitting false information in verificationform.

(10) For determining suppression or fa.lse informationattestation/verihcation form has to be specific, not vague.

I

\

To,

Only such [information which ][was required ][to ][be ][specifically]mentioned [has to ][be ][disclosed ][lf ][information not ][asked ][for ][but]is relevant comes [to ][knowledge ][oI the ][employer ][the ][same ][can]be considered [in ][al ][objectrve ][manner ][while ][addressing ][the]question of lttness. [However, ][in ][such ][cascs ][action cannot ][be]taken on basis [of ][suppression ][or submitting ][lalse ][inlormation]as to a fact [which ][was not ][even ][asked ][for']

uen or(11) Before a [person ][is ][held ][guilty ][of ][suppressto]suggestio/alsi, [knowledge ][of the fact must ][be ][attributable ][to]him."

Paragraph [30(4) ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][judgment ][deals]with certain [contingencies ][in ][respect ][of ][conviction ][or]acquittal [already ][been ][recorded ][before ][the ][filing ][of]application/verification [form' ][However' ][in ][the ][present]the [acquittal ][was ][on ][O1'10'2003 ][and ][the]case, appointment [was ][done ][on ][16'06'2003' ][Meaning thereby']at the time [when ][the ][form was ][submitted' ][there ][was ][no]acquittal [at ][all ][and ][therefore, ][tl-re ][judgment ][relied ][upon]does not [help the ][appellant and ][no ][case ][for ][interference]is made out [in ][the ][matter']

The writ [appeal ][is ][accordingly ][dismissed' ][The]miscellaneous [applications pending, ][if ][any, ][sha-il ][stand]

closed. [There ][shall ][be ][no ][order ][as ][to ][costs']

SD/. M. RAMANA [KRISHNA]DEPUTY REGISTRARSECTION [OFFICER]

//TRUE [COPY//]

1. One CC One CC [[to ][Smt' ][Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Smt' ][Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Kumari ]][[Advocqle ]][[[OPUC].]]

1. One CC One CC [[to ][Smt' ][Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Smt' ][Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Rachna ][Kumari ]][[Kumari ]][[Advocqle ]][[[OPUC].]]2. One cc [to ][sri ][Namavara;;'ii:jl!'i,liJ ][nid, ][ns-sislant ][Solicitor General ][(oPUC)]

3TwoCCstoGPForHome,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana[OUT]4Two CD CoPies5One Spare [CoPY]MBCNPJ$\x ,X{:

DATED: 3111212021

l rii [s]1,a.&o!){j1A08r[32JUDGMENTWA.No.550 of 2016

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALWITHOUT COSTS