Chattisgarh High Court
Prahlad Prasad Rathour vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:1034
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 03.10.2024
Order Delivered on 07.01.2025
WPS No. 2823 of 2024
1 - Prahlad Prasad Rathour S/o Bodhan Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And
Post Lalpur Tahsil Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer
Protection Department Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Directorate Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Through
Director, Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C A V ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
"A. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash/set-aside the order dated 15.03.2024,
issued by the Respondent No. 2/Director and all
consequences arising thereof and related thereto;
and
B. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to hold and declare that the termination of the
petitioners on the ground of his adverse/dubious
character is illegal and arbitrary; and
C. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the Respondent No. 2/Director to reinstate
the petitioner on the post of Food Inspector; and
D. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
SHUBHAM to direct the Respondent No. 2/Director to grant all
DEY
consequential benefits including but not limited to
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
salary and emoluments upon the reinstatement of
DEY
Petitioner;and
2
E. Any other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case with cost."
2. By this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the legality and sustainability
of the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the
service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner
has suppressed the material fact in his verification form and further, upon
receiving verification report, he has been held to be not fit (not suitable)
for appointment in government service.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was
appointed on the post of Food Inspector {post reserved for Ex-
Serviceman (General)} vide order dated 30.08.2018. Upon receipt of the
order of appointment, he joined service. After receiving the police
verification report, taking note of the provisions under Rule 6 of the
Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961
(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1961) and Chhattisgarh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1966 (hereinafter
for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1966) he was terminated from service
vide order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondents in terminating the petitioner from service is per se arbitrary
and does not pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He
contended that prior to the issuance of the order impugned dated
15.03.2024, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted. Hence,
the order of termination dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) suffers from
violation of principles of natural justice, the order of termination was
issued after about 06 years of appointment. The order impugned,
terminating the service of the petitioner was passed based on the police
verification report, which is communication dated 02.05.2022 of the
3
Inspector General of Police, Raipur wherein, it is reported that the
character of the petitioner was found to be unfit and non-suitable for
government service. Petitioner prior to submitting 'Form' and joining the
State services was in Indian Navy and had an unblemished service
record. He joined the State services after honorary discharge from the
Indian Navy, through the open recruitment process for the post of Food
Inspector. He was selected and appointed on the post, reserved for Ex-
Serviceman.
5. He further contended that from the service records of Indian Navy and
release certificate issued by the committee, character of the petitioner
was assessed as "Exemplary" during the entire period of service with
Indian Navy. Petitioner was assessed as "Very Good" and was also
awarded 'Good Conduct Badge' for the years 2007, 2011, 2015. He
submits that the police verification report was based on two criminal
cases which were registered against the petitioner when he was just a
minor and that too, before joining of the Indian Navy service. The said
offences are not heinous in nature. The aforementioned crime was
registered on a trivial issue of dispute with the neighbor. Complaint is
lodged not only against the petitioner, but against the entire family
members including his father and mother.
6. He submits that as even after registration of the criminal cases, petitioner
has served in the Indian Navy for a period of about 15 years with the ACR
assessment of "very good". Case of the petitioner ought to have been
considered by the respondent authorities with leniency, even if the
petitioner, if for any reason, failed to furnish the details of criminal cases in
which the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2007, i.e. prior to submitting
application 'Form' for recruitment on the post of Food Inspector. In support
of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in the cases of
4
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471, Ravindra
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024) 5 SCC 264.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State
vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
and would submit that the petitioner indisputably was involved in criminal
cases registered on 21.08.2002 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 294 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said
criminal case was compromised between the parties in the Lok Adalat
vide order dated 23.09.2007. He submits that from the aforementioned
facts, it is apparent that the petitioner was chargesheeted and the
charges were also framed against him. Copy of the RR Register which is
filed along with the petition would show that the petitioner was acquitted
from the charges under Section 294, 341, 506 (Part II), 324/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The order of appointment in specific terms
bears Clause III where it is clearly mentioned that if in the character
verification, adverse comment is found, then the candidate will be
terminated from the service, the appointment order is issued in
anticipation of the character verification. The petitioner has not disclosed
the registration of criminal cases against him of which, he was charged for
the offence and thereafter, acquitted from the charges by the Lok Adalat
on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Registration of
criminal case has not been disclosed in the verification 'Form' by the
petitioner and hence, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of
registration of criminal case i.e. two FIRs were registered against the
petitioner and in both the FIRs, the criminal cases was culminated on the
ground of compromise entered into between the parties which does not
mean that the petitioner is absolved from the liability of giving correct and
fair information, to which, he was bound to give information as per the
clauses of the verification form.
5
8. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that the ground of
not providing an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in the
facts of the case would be futile exercise as there is admission on the part
of the petitioner that the facts mentioned are correct and therefore, it is
also the contention that the offences for which, the petitioner faced
criminal trial attracts moral turpitude as he was not acquitted honorably by
the Court and hence, no ground is made out by the petitioner for the
relief(s) as sought for in the writ petition. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the Respondent/State places reliance upon the
decision in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2023) 7 SCC 536, Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
through Principal Secretary, Home and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 748.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
10.In the case at hand, petitioner submitted an application for his
appointment on the post of Food Inspector after he was honorary
discharged from the service of Indian Navy. He worked in Indian Navy as
per the documents available on record (Annexure P/4) from 31.01.2003 to
31.01.2018 i.e. for a period of 15 years. The order dated 23.09.2007
(Annexure P/5) enclosed along with the writ petition is an order passed by
the learned Lok Adalat wherein, the petitioner along with 03 others have
been acquitted from the charges under Section 323, 294, r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 on compromise entered between the parties.
Another order is dated 23.09.2007 of the learned Lok Adalat in Criminal
Case No. 59/2003 which was disposed of by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pendra in an offence under Section 294, 341, 506
(Part II), 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for the post of Food Inspector in the
category of Ex-Serviceman, when he has completed the age of more than
6
31 years of age after his retirement/discharge from Indian Navy service
with pension. The case which was registered against the petitioner has
been reported to be attracting moral turpitude as per the list of offences
mentioned in the guidelines/circular issued by the State Government
dated 04.02.2012 with respect to the verification of the character of a
candidate in which, Section 324 has been shown to be an offence
attracting moral turpitude.
12.On the date of submission of the application 'Form', the criminal cases
were registered against the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted and the
charges were also framed against him, however, he was acquitted from
the charges in one case on account of compromise entered into between
the parties and another, acquitted from the Court of competent
jurisdiction. However, the order of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No.
59/2003 is not placed on record.
13.Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 deals with disqualification of a person/candidate
for his appointment in government service. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 6 of the
Rules, 1961 reads as under:-
"(3) No Candidate shall be eligible for appointment to
a service or post if, after such enquiry as may be
considered necessary, the appointing authority is
satisfied that he is not suitable in any respect for
service or post."
14. From the aforementioned provision under Rule 6 (3), it is specifically
provided that it is the appointing authority, based on the enquiry has to
assess the suitability of the candidate for his appointment on service or
post. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M.
Bhaskaran (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 100 has observed thus:-
"(6) It is not necessary for us to express any opinion
on the applicability of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) on the
facts of the present cases for the simple reason that
in our view the railway employees concerned,
respondents herein, have admittedly snatched
7
employment in railway service, maybe of a casual
nature, by relying upon forged or bogus casual
labourer service cards. The unauthenticity of the
service cards on the basis of which they got
employment is clearly established on record of the
departmental enquiry held against the employees
concerned. Consequently, it has to be held that the
respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and
fraud perpetrated on the appellant-employer while
getting employed in railway service and had
snatched such employment which would not have
been made available to them if they were not armed
with such bogus and forged labourer service cards.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
for getting service in railway as casual labourers, it
was strictly not necessary for the respondents to rely
upon such casual service cards. If that was so there
was no occasion for them to produce such bogus
certificates/service cards for getting employed in
railway service. Therefore, it is too late in the day for
the respondents to submit that production of such
bogus or forged service cards had not played its role
in getting employed in railway service. It was clearly
a case of fraud on the appellant-employer. If once
such fraud is detected, the appointment orders
themselves which were found to be tainted and
vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of
employees, were liable to be recalled and were at
least voidable at the option of the employer
concerned. This is precisely what has happened in
the present case. Once the fraud of the respondents
in getting such employment was detected, the
respondents were proceeded against in
departmental enquiries and were called upon to
have their say and thereafter have been removed
from service. Such orders of removal would amount
to recalling of fraudulently obtained erroneous
appointment orders which were avoided by the
employer-appellant after following the due procedure
of law and complying with the principles of natural
justice. Therefore, even independently of Rule 3(1)(i)
and (iii) of the Rules, such fraudulently obtained
appointment orders could be legitimately treated as
voidable at the option of the employer and could be
recalled by the employer and in such cases merely
because the respondent-employees have continued
in service for a number of years on the basis of such
fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot
create any equity in their favour or any estoppel
against the employer. In this connection we may
8
usefully refer to a decision of this Court in Distt.
Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 :
(1990) 14 ATC 766] . In that case Sawant, J.
speaking for this Court held that when an
advertisement mentions a particular qualification and
an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it
is not a matter only between the appointing authority
and the concerned appointee. The aggrieved are all
those who had similar or even better qualifications
than the appointee or appointees but who had not
applied for the post because they did not possess
the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It
amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with
inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it
is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable.
No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the
fraudulent practice. It is of course true as noted by
the Tribunal that the facts of the case in the
aforesaid decision were different from the facts of
the present case. And it is also true that in that case
pending the service which was continued pursuant to
the order of the Tribunal the candidate concerned
acquired the requisite qualification and hence his
appointment was not disturbed by this Court. But
that is neither here nor there. As laid down in the
aforesaid decision, if by committing fraud any
employment is obtained, such a fraudulent practice
cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court
of law. Consequently, it must be held that the
Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in
directing reinstatement of the respondent-workmen
with all consequential benefits. The removal orders
could not have been faulted by the Tribunal as they
were the result of a sharp and fraudulent practice on
the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the
respondents, however, submitted that these illiterate
respondents were employed as casual labourers
years back in 1983 and subsequently they have
been given temporary status and, therefore, after
passage of such a long time they should not be
thrown out of employment. It is difficult to agree with
this contention. By mere passage of time a
fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity. The
appellant authorities having come to know about the
fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment as
casual labourers, started departmental proceedings
years back in 1987 and these proceedings have
dragged on for a number of years. Earlier, removal
9
orders of the respondents were set aside by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and
proceedings were remanded and after remand, fresh
removal orders were passed by the appellant which
have been set aside by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and which are the
subject-matter of the present proceedings.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are
estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained
employment orders of the respondents subject of
course to following due procedure of law and in due
compliance with the principles of natural justice, on
which aspect there is no dispute between the
parties. If any lenient view is taken on the facts of the
present case in favour of the respondents, then it
would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and
sharp practice which on the facts of the present
cases cannot be permitted.”
15. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437, Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the
suppression of fact by Teacher has upheld the order of termination and
has observed thus:-
“(12) The object of requiring information in columns
12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification
thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and
verify the character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to continue in service. A candidate having
suppressed material information and/or giving false
information cannot claim right to continue in service.
The employer having regard to the nature of the
employment and all other aspects had the discretion
to terminate his services, which is made expressly
clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The
purpose of seeking information as per columns 12
and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity
of the offence or the result of a criminal case
ultimately. The information in the said columns was
sought with a view to judge the character and
antecedents of the respondent to continue in service
or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see
this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that
the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn
and that the offences, in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved, were also not of
serious nature. In the present case the respondent
was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in
10
Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and
antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on
the minds of the students of impressionable age.
The appellants having considered all the aspects
passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from
service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly
recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of
dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court
was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the
Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in
taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State
Government and that the case was not of a serious
nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that
ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of
appointment subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of
the said memorandum extracted above in clear
terms kept the respondent informed that the
suppression of any information may lead to dismissal
from service. In the attestation form, the respondent
has certified that the information given by him is
correct and complete to the best of his knowledge
and belief; if he could not understand the contents of
columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having
certified that the information given by him is correct
and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The
order of termination of services clearly shows that
there has been due consideration of various aspects.
In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for
the respondent that as per para 9 of the
memorandum, the termination of service was not
automatic, cannot be accepted.”
16. In the case of R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police (2008)
1 SCC 660, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the appointment of
an employee in uniform service and observed thus:-
“(10) Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain
appointment in a uniformed service. The standard
expected of a person intended to serve in such a
service is different from the one of a person who
intended to serve in other services. Application for
appointment and the verification roll were both in
Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and
understood the implication of his statement or
omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that
in the event such a disclosure had been made, the
authority could have verified his character as also
suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is
11also not in dispute that the persons who had not
made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly
situated had not been appointed.
(11) The question came up for consideration before
this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11
SCC 605 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 492] wherein it was
categorically held : (SCC p. 606, para 3)“3. … The Tribunal in the impugned order
allowed the application on the ground that since the
respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under
Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of
appointment to the post under the State. The
question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is
correct in law? It is seen that verification of the
character and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected candidate is
suitable to a post under the State. Though he was
found physically fit, passed the written test and
interview and was provisionally selected, on account
of his antecedent record, the appointing authority
found it not desirable to appoint a person of such
record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The
view taken by the appointing authority in the
background of the case cannot be said to be
unwarranted.”
By observing the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the appellant has suppressed the material fact. In case of
this nature, we are of the opinion that the question of exercising any
equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise and dismissed the
appeal.
17. In the case of Jainendra Singh (Supra), the principles have been
summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking note of the earlier
decisions on the issue and observed thus:-
“(29) As noted by us, all the above decisions were
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting
of two Judges and having bestowed our serious
consideration to the issue, we consider that while
dealing with such an issue, the Court will have to
12bear in mind the various cardinal principles before
granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:
29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment
could be legitimately treated as voidable at the
option of the employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely because the
respondent employee has continued in service for a
number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently
obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer.”
In the aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 29 has
observed that fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be
legitimately treated as voidable on the option of the employer or could be
recalled by the employer and in such cases, merely because the
respondent/employer has continued in service for a number of years on
the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any
equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer and further, the
verification of the character and the antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under
the State.
18. In the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), three Judges Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions has observed thus:-
“(29) The verification of antecedents is necessary to
find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a
declarant is found to be of good moral character on
due verification of antecedents, merely by
suppression of involvement in trivial offence which
was not pending on date of filling attestation form,
whether he may be deprived of employment? There
may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious
offence in which employee has been acquitted but
due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt.
There may be situation when person has been
convicted of an offence before filling verification form
or case is pending and information regarding it has
been suppressed, whether employer should wait till
outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision
or in case when action has been initiated there is
already conclusion of criminal case resulting in
conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The
13
situation may arise for consideration of various
aspects in a case where disclosure has been made
truthfully of required information, then also authority
is required to consider and verify fitness for
appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if
in the process of verification of information, certain
information comes to notice then also employer is
required to take a decision considering various
aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on
verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the
same time authority has to consider effect of
suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial
offence which does not render him unfit, what
importance to be attached to such non-disclosure.
Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of
cases?
(30). The employer is given “discretion” to terminate
or otherwise to condone the omission. Even
otherwise, once employer has the power to take a
decision when at the time of filling verification form
declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in
such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts
and attending circumstances, including impact of
suppression or false information are taken into
consideration while adjudging suitability of an
incumbent for services in question. In case the
employer comes to the conclusion that suppression
is immaterial and even if facts would have been
disclosed it would not have adversely affected
fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded,
it has power to condone the lapse. However, while
doing so employer has to act prudently on due
consideration of nature of post and duties to be
rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard
has to be very high and even slightest false
information or suppression may by itself render a
person unsuitable for the post. However, same
standard cannot be applied to each and every post.
In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what
has been suppressed is material fact and would
have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment.
An employer would be justified in not appointing or if
appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent
on due consideration of various aspects. Even if
disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer
has the right to consider fitness and while doing so
effect of conviction and background facts of case,
nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if
acquittal has been made, employer may consider
nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or
14
giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and
decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious
character. In case employer comes to conclusion
that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case
would not affect the fitness for employment,
incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.
(33). 33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a
transaction and in case employment has been
obtained on the basis of forged documents, as
observed in M. Bhaskaran case, it has also been
observed in the reference order that if an
appointment was procured fraudulently, the
incumbent may be terminated without holding any
inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case
employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has
protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be
held before terminating the services. The case of
obtaining appointment on the basis of forged
documents has the effect on very eligibility of
incumbent for the job in question, however,
verification of antecedents is different aspect as to
his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The
fraudulently obtained appointment orders are
voidable at the option of employer, however,
question has to be determined in the light of the
discussion made in this order on impact of
suppression or submission of false information.
(35). Suppression of “material” information
presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters”
not every technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions,
if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed
the material information cannot claim unfettered right
for appointment or continuity in service but he has a
right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
(38). We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our
conclusion thus:
38.1. 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
1538.2. 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
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to
the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. 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 recourses appropriate to the case
may be adopted:
38.4.1. 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.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case
which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel
candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a
case involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it 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.
38.5. 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.
38.6. 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.
38.6. 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.
16
38.7. 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.
38.8. 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.
38.9. 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.
38.10. 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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio
veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him.”
19. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 317 while
considering the case of the appellant therein of not disclosing the criminal
prosecution in the attestation form filled by the petitioner and on the said
ground, discharge from service has observed thus:-
“(13) What emerges from the exposition as laid down
by this Court is that by mere suppression of
material/false information regardless of the fact
whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been
recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just
by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of
suppression of material/false information involving in
a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to
consider all the relevant facts and circumstances
available as to antecedents and keeping in view the
17objective criteria and the relevant service rules into
consideration, while taking appropriate decision
regarding continuance/suitability of the employee
into service. What has been noticed by this Court is
that mere suppression of material/false information
in a given case does not mean that the employer can
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from
service.
(19). The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature
and the nature of post and nature of duties to be
discharged by the recruit has never been looked into
by the competent authority while examining the
overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view
Rule 52 of the 1987 RPF Rules to become a
member of the force. Taking into consideration the
exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh
[Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , in our considered view
the order of discharge passed by the competent
authority dated 24-4-2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel thereto the judgment [Pawan Kumar v. Union
of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14648] passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi does
not hold good and deserves to be set aside.”
20. In the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr.
Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 while considering the termination
of a Technical Helper by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
on account of non-disclosure of the criminal case registered against him
and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 143, 341,
323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but granted benefit of The Probation
of the Offenders Act, 1958, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
“(13) Even otherwise, subsequently getting the
benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not be
helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question
is about filing a false declaration on 14-4-2015 that
neither any criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any court of law, which
was much prior to the order passed by the learned
Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of
the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in
case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once
made a false declaration and/or suppressed the
material fact of pending criminal case shall not be
entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.
18
(14). The issue/question may be considered from
another angle, from the employer’s point of view.
The question is not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he
has been subsequently acquitted or not. The
question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at the
initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting
the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post
made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or
suppressing material fact of having involved in a
criminal case. If the correct facts would have been
disclosed, the employer might not have appointed
him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in
such a situation, where the employer feels that an
employee who at the initial stage itself has made a
false statement and/or not disclosed the material
facts and/or suppressed the material facts and
therefore he cannot be continued in service because
such an employee cannot be relied upon even in
future, the employer cannot be forced to continue
such an employee. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an employee
always must be given to the employer. At the cost of
repetition, it is observed and as observed
hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be
in service as a matter of right.
(15) In view of the aforestated facts and
circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division
Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have
clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order
of termination terminating the services of the
respondent on the ground of having obtained an
appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a
false declaration. The order of reinstatement is
wholly untenable and unjustified.”
21. In the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed thus:-
“(101) Indisputably, Satish Chandra Yadav was still
under probation at the time his services had been
terminated. It is also apparent from the record that
Satish Chandra Yadav had been given appointment
on probation subject to the verification of facts given
in the verification form. To our mind, therefore, if an
enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the
respondent herein was at liberty to dispense with the
services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav as
19the question of any stigma and penal consequences
at this stage would not arise. It bears repetition that
what has led to the termination of the services of the
appellant Satish Chandra Yadav is not his
involvement in the criminal case which was then
pending, and in which he had been acquitted
subsequently but the fact that he had withheld
relevant information while filling in the verification
form. He could be said to have exhibited or
displayed such a tendency which shook the
confidence of the respondent.
(103). Ms Madhavi Divan, the learned ASG has
rightly relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 10 in
which this Court held that the purpose of requiring an
employee to furnish information regarding
prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification form
was to assess his character and antecedents for the
purpose of employment and continuation in service;
that suppression of material information and making
a false statement in reply to the queries relating to
prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on
the character, conduct and antecedents of the
employee; and that where it is found that the
employee had suppressed or given false information
in regard to the matters which had a bearing on his
fitness or suitability to the post, he could be
terminated from service during the period of
probation without holding any inquiry. This Court
also made it clear that neither the gravity of the
criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein
was relevant when considering whether a
probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his
being involved in a criminal case, in the personal
information furnished to the employer), is fit to be
continued as a probationer.”
22. The decision in the case of Ravindra Kumar (Supra) relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner is on different facts. In the said case, the
applicant was involved in criminal case after submitting the application
‘Form’. He participated in the recruitment proceedings, cleared written
examination, interview and the physical efficiency test and was
subsequently acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 13.09.2004.
He submitted an affidavit on 03.10.2004 mentioning that no criminal case
cognizable or non-cognizable has ever been registered against him in that
20
case, the Court considered that the verification form wherein, it is
mentioned the registered crime for offence under Section 324, 352, 504 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 no other case was pending and the certification
of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the character of the candidate is
excellent, as per my consent, the candidate is liable to do government
service under the State Government. The Court also took note of
character certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan who has given the
certificate “Excellent”, the Superintendent of Police also recommended
the candidate to be eligible to do government service under the State
Government. However, the State Government considered the letter of
Inspector General of Police (PAC) that on submission false affidavit,
action should be taken as per their discretion or government orders.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case have considered the earlier decisions
including the position in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra) and
has observed that the facts of the case and in backdrop of the special
circumstances, as set-out here-in-above, where it is the non-disclosure of
unfortunate criminal case and considering that case to be one of the facts
had allowed the appeal.
24.In the case at hand, petitioner was an ex-employee of Indian Navy, he
was well aware of the importance of submitting the correct information in
verification Form and the consequences of disclosing or not disclosing the
facts in relevant clauses mentioned therein. In particular, Para 12,
information as sought in the verification ‘Form’ (Annexure R/1) is very
clear and specific, relevant portion of which is extracted below:-
” 12. (क) क्या आप कभी गिरफ्तार किए गए हैं, क्या आप पर कभी
अभियोजन चलाया गया है. क्या आप कभी निरूद्ध किए गए हैं या
आपसे मुचलका लिया गया है, आप पर जुर्माना किया गया है, क्या
आप किसी अपराध के लिए न्यायालय द्वारा दोषी ठहराये गये हैं, या
आपको किसी भी लोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा, उसके द्वारा संचालित
परीक्षाओं/ किए जाने वाले चयनों में सम्मिलित होने से वर्जित किया
गया है, उसके लिए अनर्ह ठहराया गया है, या क्या आपको किसी भी
विश्वविद्यालय या किसी भी अन्य शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण / संस्था द्वारा
21किसी भी परीक्षा में बैठने से वर्जित किया गया है/ निष्कासित किया
गया है ।.
ख) क्या इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म को भरते समय किसी भी न्यायालय,
विश्वविद्यालय या किसी भी शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण / संस्था में आपके
विरूद्ध कोई मामला लंबित है ?
यदि (क) अथवा (ख) में पूछे गये प्रश्नों के संबंध में आपके उत्तर “हां”
में हो तो आपको इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म को मरते समय मामले,
गिरफ्तारी, निरोध, जुर्माना, दोषसिद्ध तथा दण्डादेश आदि के पूरे
ब्यौरे प्रस्तुत करने चाहिए तथा इस फार्म को भरते समय न्यायालय /
विश्वविद्यालय / शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण आदि के समक्ष जो मामला
लंबित हो उसका स्वरूप बतलाना चाहिए। इस जानकारी के
अतिरिक्त, जहां लागू हो वहां निम्नलिखित ब्यौरे भी दिए जायेंगे-
(एक) अपराध / आरोप.
(दो) पुलिस थाने में पंजीयित.
(तीन) यदि न्यायालय में चालान किया गया न्यायालय का नाम
(चार) मामल का कमांक न्यायालय द्वारा उसका निपटारा, किस
तारीख का दिया गया
(पाच) दिया गया दण्ड
(छ) क्या दोषमुक्त कर दिया गया
(सात) दोषमुक्ति संदेह के लाभ पर आधारित थी या मामला वापस ले
लिया गया था :
(टिप्पणी : कृ पया इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म के ऊपर दी गई “चेतावनी”
भी देखें)”
25.There is no ambiguity in the information as sought, but it has also been
made clear in Para 12 and clauses mentioned therein. It appears that the
petitioner who was an Ex-serviceman has purposefully and with ill-
intention had not disclosed the correct facts. According to the service
rules applicable to the facts of the case, if the correct information of the
involvement of the petitioner in criminal case and his acquittal or
conviction would had disclosed, the appointing authority could have
applied his mind based on the rules, circulars whether the offence/crime
registered attracts moral turpitude or not and suitability of the petitioner for
his appointment. At this stage, Court is not to consider the gravity of the
offence registered against petitioner, but the act of deliberate attempt of
not disclosing the correct fact in the verification Form. Hence, in the
aforementioned facts of the case, even if, the petitioner has worked for a
considerable period of about more than 05 years, equity does not lie in his
favour.
22
26.For the foregoing discussions and considering the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the guidelines issued, I do not find any error
in decision making process of the respondent in terminating the services
of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being sans merit, it is liable
to be and is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
[ad_1]
Source link