Kerala High Court
Harilal S vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2025
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
1
C.R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 3RD MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
HARILAL S
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. SOMARAJAN, KOKKATTUTHARA VEEDU, MEENATHUCHERRI
VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM., PIN - 691581
BY ADVS.
C.RAJENDRAN
B.GOPALAKRISHNAN
R.S.SREEVIDYA
MANU M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT, ROOM
NUMBER 234-SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110011
2 THE COMMANDING OFFICER/ OFFG OFFICER AE (CIV)
1519 ROAD MAINT PLATOON, CARE 112 RCC (GREF), C/O 56
APO., MAHARASHTA, PIN - 930112
3 THE COL COMMANDER
HEAD QUARTERS 753 BORDER ROADS TASK FORCE ENDS, GREF
CENTRE, PUNE -15, MAHARASHTRA STATE., PIN - 930753
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SPECIAL BRANCH KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN -
691001
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
2
BY ADVS.
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed in General Reserve Engineer
Force (GREF) on 17.02.2022 as Driver Mechanical Transport
(DVRMT) OG against the vacancy for the year 2019 under OBC
category. Thereafter, he was posted at RCC (GREF) Records vide
the order dated 29.06.2022. Before the petitioner was appointed,
he was an accused in Crime No. 210/2015 registered at
Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, for offences punishable
under Sections 452, 294,325 and 324 of IPC. After completing
the investigation, the investigating officer submitted the final
report in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kollam II, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case
as C.C No.1083/2015. The petitioner and others filed Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No. 4208/2022 before this Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the final report and further
proceedings in the case. This court, vide the judgment dated
07.07.2022, quashed the final report in Ext.P1 in Crime
No.210/2015 registered at Sakthikulangara Police Station,
Kollam and further proceedings before the Judicial First Class
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
4
Magistrate Court II, Kollam, against the petitioner.
2.After the petitioner got the appointment, on police
verification, it was reported that the petitioner was involved in a
case registered as Crime No. 92/2011 under Sections 143, 147,
188, 283 of IPC, registered at Sakthikulangara Police Station,
Kollam. The allegation in the FIR was that during the temple
Festival, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, caused
blockage to smooth the movement of vehicles through the road.
The said case was compounded, and it was closed on payment of
fine by the petitioner. On 07.09.2022, the 2nd respondent,
Commanding Officer, issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner, giving an opportunity to submit his written reply that
why the actions should not be taken against him as per Sub rule
(1) of Rules (5) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965, by terminating his services for suppressing the
material information regarding his involvement in two criminal
cases, and therefore, he was not suitable for appointment as he
obtained the Government job by concealing the material facts.
3. Thereafter, Ext. P7 notice of termination of services was
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
5
issued to the petitioner by the Commanding Officer, intimating
to the petitioner that his services would stand terminated with
effect from the expiry of one month from the date on which the
notice would be served on him. The petitioner was issued a
relieving letter in Ext.P8 dated 04.10.2022 stating that the
petitioner’s service would stand terminated with effect from
04.10.2022.
4.The petitioner’s wife submitted an application on
16.01.2023, requesting the 2nd respondent to cancel the order of
termination of the service of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent
issued a reply stating that her husband had already been served
a notice of termination on 04.11.2022 and the petitioner did not
make any correspondence with them on the said notice of
termination. It was also stated that the petitioner had submitted
an application to resign from the service with effect from
02.08.2022, giving the reason that due to certain compelling
domestic situations and unavoidable circumstances, he was not
willing to continue in service. The termination notice and the
resignation were forwarded to the petitioner’s wife. The
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
6
petitioner has taken the stand that the petitioner has not written
any letter resigning from the post and handwriting could not
suggest that it was written by the petitioner. Now the petitioner
has approached this court to quash the termination notice and
order of relieving in Exts. P7 and P8.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s involvement was in very minor cases, one of which
was quashed by the High Court and another was compounded by
payment of fine. In view thereof, the petitioner has not earned a
disqualification from appointment to the post of Driver
Mechanical Transport in the respondent establishment.
6.It is further submitted that non-disclosure of the two cases
which were quashed would not be fatal to the employment. The
petitioner was appointed vide the order dated 17.02.2022. Soon
after his appointment, the criminal case registered at
Sakthikulangara, Kollam Police Station as Crime No.210/2015
under Section, for offences punishable under Sections,
143,147,148,447,294(b),323,324 read with Section 149 of IPC
were quashed by the High Court vide the order dated 07.07.2022
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
7
in Crl.M.C No. 4208 of 2022 and another case registered against
him as Crime No. 92/2011 under the same police station under
Sections 143,147,188,283 of IPC was compounded by paying the
fine by the petitioner.
7. He further submitted the nature of the offence and the
facts that those cases were registered when the petitioner was a
student and involved in the Union activities of the College would
not in any manner impair the suitability of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Driver Mechanical Transport.
8.Mr. Daya Sindhu Shreehari, the learned Central
Government Counsel representing the respondent, submits that
the petitioner ought to have disclosed the cases pending against
him. Two cases registered against him were subsequently
quashed, one by the High Court and another by paying the fine,
after the petitioner was appointed. The allegation against the
petitioner is of the concealment of the material fact about non
disclosure of the pendency of the two cases against him. He,
therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief
claimed in this writ petition.
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
8
9.I have considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central
Government Counsel.
10.No one can doubt that the offences punishable under
Sections 143,147,148,447,294(b),323, 324 of IPC do not involve
the moral turpitude of the petitioner. The offences were allegedly
committed by the petitioner while he was involved in student
union activity at the College. Later on, this court quashed the
final report submitted by the police in respect of Crime No.
210/2015, and another offence was compounded by payment of
fine.
11.Mr. Daya Sindhu Shreehari, the learned Central
Government Counsel does not dispute the fact that the offences
registered against the petitioner were trivial and not involving
the moral turpitude of the petitioner.
12.The Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs Union Of India
(2016 (8) SCC 471) has held in paragraph 24 that, by considering
the young age of the petitioner in that case as also that he was
involved in a minor offence, held that the young people often
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
9
commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be
condoned.
13.Paragraph 24 of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra)
should read as under:-
24.In Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep
Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644, this Court considered a case
where Sandeep Kumar’s candidature for the post of
Constable was cancelled on the ground that he had
concealed his involvement in the criminal case
under section 325/34 IPC when he was about 20 years. In
para 9, this Court took note of the character “Jean Valjean”
in Victor Hugo’s novel ‘Les Miserables’ in which for
committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for
his hungry family, Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for
whole life. This Court also referred to the decision in Morris
v. Crown Office (1970) 2 QB 114. Relevant portion is
extracted hereunder :
“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the
cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to
give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident
happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of
age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions,
and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all,
youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as
mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach
should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young
people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest
of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character “Jean
Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables, in which for
committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for
his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his
whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a
person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students
mentioned by Lord Denning in his book Due Process of Law.
It appears that some students of Wales were very
enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset
because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the
English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London
and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of
contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months
by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 202310
Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning
observed:
“I come now to Mr Watkin Powell’s third point. He says that
the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were
excessive, at the time they were given and in the
circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate
interference with the course of justice in a case which was
no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to
show–and to show to all students everywhere–that this
kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate,
if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them
make their protests as they will. But they must do it by
lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the
course of justice in this land–and I speak both for England
and Wales–they strike at the roots of society itself, and they
bring down that which protects them. It is only by the
maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be
students and to study and live in peace. So let them support
the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by
the sentences which the Judge passed on Wednesday of last
week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained,
and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are
changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They
have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They
have already served a week in prison. I do not think it
necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young
people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence,
dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much
that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to
preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it.
It is the language of the bards–of the poets and the
singers–more melodious by far than our rough English
tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with
English. They have done wrong–very wrong–in going to
the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think
we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit
them to go back to their studies, to their parents and
continue the good course which they have so wrongly
disturbed.” (Vide Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2 QB 114 at
p. 125C-H. In our opinion, we should display the same
wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits
indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did
not mention that he was involved in a criminal case
under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention
this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be
disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 202311
like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view
should be taken in the matter.” This Court has observed that
suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep
Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age
people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions
may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to
reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his
life. In Morris v. Crown Office (supra), the observations
made were that young people are no ordinary criminals.
There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were
trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have
done wrong but must we show mercy on them and they were
permitted to go back to their studies, to their parents and
continue the good course.”
14.In case of Ramkumar V. State of Uttarpradesh (2011 (14)
SCC 709) where the candidate for the post of constable in U.P
police was involved in an offence registered under Sections 324,
323 and 504 of IPC and thereafter in the said case, the candidate
was acquitted, however, his appointment was cancelled on the
grounds that he withheld information about the criminal case
against him after it was reported in his character verification, the
Supreme Court held that the appointment authorities must
consider and take a view of whether the candidate would be
suitable for the appointment for the post of police constable or
not.
15.In the case Ravindra Kumar vs State Of U.P (2024 (5)
SCC 264) it was held that brushing every non-disclosure as a
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
12
disqualification would be unjust, and the same would tantamount
to being completely oblivious to the ground realities prevailing
in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on
the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon. The court will
have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the
available precedents serving as a guide.
16.Paragraph 34 of the said judgment which is relevant is
extracted hereunder:-
34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the
special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the
non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too
ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it
can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every
non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the
ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse
country. Each case will depend on the facts and
circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have
to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the
available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a
one size fits all scenario.
17.In the present case, the Commissioner of Police, Kollam,
vide the letter dated 30.05.2022, on verification of character and
antecedents of the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was not
suitable for the appointment. Non-disclosure of two minor cases,
which were later on quashed and closed, one by the High Court
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
13
and another by paying the fine, would not itself make the
petitioner unsuitable for the post of Driver. It must be noted that
the authority did not consider the fact that the alleged offences
were committed by the petitioner when he was a student, and the
nature of the offences were not serious but trivial in nature.
Nowhere has the authority recorded a finding that nondisclosure
of the offences which were subsequently quashed and
compounded involve the moral turpitude of the petitioner. The
fact remains that the petitioner was involved in those offences
when he was young and involved in the activities of the student
union. Every non-disclosure cannot be treated to be fatal to the
appointment to the post of Driver in the respondent.
18. Considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in the
cases cited above, I am of the view that the non-disclosure of two
criminal cases against the petitioner, which were quashed and
compounded, would not be fatal to the petitioner’s suitability to
the post inasmuch as the cases are not serious in character and
do not involve the petitioner’s moral turpitude. The competent
authority has not considered these aspects while issuing the
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
14
impugned notices of termination and relieving order in Exts.P7
and P8.
19.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders
in Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside, and the matter is remitted back
to the 2nd respondent to consider afresh that whether the
petitioner would be non-suitable to hold the post of Driver
Mechanical Transport because of the non-disclosure of two
criminal cases which were quashed and compounded as
mentioned above. The said decision of the 2nd respondent must
be on the basis of the law as discussed above. On remand, the 2nd
respondent should take the decision afresh within a period of one
month after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In view thereof, the present writ petition stands allowed,
however without cost.
Sd/-
D K SINGH
JUDGE
SJ
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
15
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17573/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07/07/2022 IN CRL M C NO.4208/2022 OF THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
MAGISTRATE IN CC NO. 1083/2015 DATED
25/07/2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPORT OF 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/08/2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 16/08/2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE DATED
07/09/2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE DATED
20/9/2022
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED
03/11/2022
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DATED
16/01/2023
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/02/2023
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED
16/09/2022
Exhibit P12 THE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER COPIED FROM
EXHIBIT P11 BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS OWN
HANDWRITING
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the posting Order No.0540/GP-
II/DVRMT/FRC/FA5 dated 02.04.2022
2025:KER:7092
WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023
16
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the affirmation dated 24.01.2022
attested by the petitioner
Exhibit R2(d) True copy of the letter No.114/SB/VR/CQ/2022-
QC dated 30.05.2022 issued by the Office of
Commissioner of police, Kollam City
Exhibit R2(e) True copy of the application dated 02.08.2022
submitted by the petitioner
Exhibit R2(f) True copy of the notice of termination issued
to the petitioner vide letter No.1604/TS/112
RCC/Harilal S/04/EIC dated 30.09.2022
Exhibit R2(g) True copy of the ackowledgement evidencing the
reciept of notice of termination
Exhibit R2(c) True copy of the letter No.1664/RFT/1486/ITW
dated 05.04.2022 addressed to the Commissioner
of Police, Kollam City along with typed copy
[ad_1]
Source link