055180079 Constable/Driver Praveen Kumar vs Central Reservce Police Force and Others

Hon''ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

This petition arises against the orders dated 5.9.2007, 5.11.2007 and 7.4.2008 passed by the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4 respectively by means of which the services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Constable/Driver in CRPF.

The petitioner was initially selected on the post of Constable/Driver in the CRPF in Etawah on 19.6.2005. At the time of training a Form No. 25 was required to be filled by the petitioner wherein he was required to give information whether any criminal case was pending again him or not. The petitioner left the column blank and has got selected himself. Although NCR No. 11 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner on 25.01.2004 and the said NCR was subsequently converted into First Information Report and was registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2004 under Sections 323, 325 & 504 IPC, P.S. Chaubia, District Etawah. The trial thereafter proceeded and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him by means of the judgement and order dated 29.03.2005.

The petitioner under belief that he has been acquitted in the case presumed that no crime was existing against him, hence he did not mention anything in regard to the case in which he stood acquitted.

The opposite parties at the time of verification found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 05 of 2004, under Sections 323, 325 & 504 IPC, P.S. Chaubia, District Etawah and the petitioner has not disclosed in his form in regard to that case. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was obtained by concealing the material information which was required to be disclosed by him. The appointing authority thereafter proceeded to hold an enquiry and dismissed the petitioner vide order dated 05.09.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said dismisssal order and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 05.11.2007. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision which too was dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 7.4.2008, hence this petition.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner stood acquitted in criminal case registered against him as Case Crime No. 05 of 2004, under Sections 323, 325 & 504 IPC, P.S. Chaubia, District Etawah vide order dated 29.3.2005. The petitioner was acquitted by means of judgment and order dated 29.3.2005, therefore, the selection of the petitioner was admittedly valid on 14.06.2005, hence there was no requirement to have disclosed that the criminal case was registered and he was acquitted in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the requirement in regard to the pendency of the criminal case, if any, against the petitioner in all its wisdom could presume that no case was pending against him when he appeared in the selection. Apart from it, submission is that the acquittal on merit itself goes to indicate that the crime stood expunged against the petitioner and once the crime stood expunged it cannot be said that any criminal case was still pending against him.

Learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner withheld the material information as the said criminal case has been registered against him. The petitioner at no point of time disclosed in the form that a case was registered against him though he stood acquitted prior to the filling of the form for the selection. Therefore, the authorities concerned have committed no illegality in dismissing the services'' of the petitioner and the petitioner is responsible for withholding the material information which ought to have been disclosed in Form no. 25.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner was acquitted by means of judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 hence no case was pending against him on 14.6.2005, i.e. on the date of filling of the said form. The petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal case prior to the filling of the form, therefore, there was no requirement to have disclosed that a criminal case was registered against him and he stood acquitted in the said case. There was no such column existing in the said form to declare that any criminal case was registered against the petitioner before selection. Since the criminal case against the petitioner stood expunged by means of the judgment and order dated 29.3.2005, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to presume that still the offence existed against him. Once the petitioner was acquitted on merit it has to be presumed that the petitioner stood acquitted from the charges levelled against him and, therefore, there was no legal requirement on the part of the petitioner to have disclosed that a criminal case has been registered against him. The authorities concerned, therefore, did not consider this aspect of the matter and proceeded to dismiss the petitioner''s services on the ground of non disclosure of criminal case registered against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 59137 of 2007 (Allahabad ), Mohd. Kayum vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, wherein this Court held as under :

As regards the submission made by the petitioner with respect to case crime no. 13 of 1996 that there was no clause regarding the fact that if there was criminal case in the past and he had been acquitted the this fact was required to be mentioned in the affidavit as such the petitioner did not mention in good faith, in my opinion, if there was no clause regarding any criminal proceeding in past, then there was no obligation on the part of a person concerned to give a declaration to that effect. In my view, it cannot be stated that it was intentional.

The case of the petitioner is also on similar footings and once the petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, in the opinion of the Court there was no legal requirement on the part of the petitioner to have disclosed the aforesaid criminal case which was registered against him.

In the light of above observations, writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 05.09.2007, 05.11.2007 and 07.04.2008 are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.