Dinesh vs Union Of India & Others

The present petition under Article 226 assails the order dated 20-8-2008 (Annexure P-1) by which the services of petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF of Brevity) have been dispensed with after giving one month's notice.

Admittedly, the order impugned does not assign any reason and therefore, order is simplicitor in nature, discharging the services of a probationer without casting any stigma.

The State filed a return revealing the reason of petitioner having concealed registration of criminal offence and pendency of prosecution against him which later culminated into judgment of acquittal by compounding by order dated 21.02.2005.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on probation by order dated 06.05.2006 as Constable (GD) in CRPF and after his appointment, which was made subject to character verification of criminal antecedents, it was revealed that offences were registered against him punishable u/Ss. 323, 504 of IPC read with Sec.34 of IPC in the year 2004, which gave rise to the criminal prosecution before the trial Court where petitioner was acquitted by compounding of offence by order dated 21-02-05.

The Appointing Authority found that petitioner in his character verification form suppressed the information about registration of offence and pendency of criminal prosecution against him by not providing the necessary details in Column No.12 of aforesaid prosecution. As such it is evident from the return that the real reason behind discharging of services was suppression of the fact of petitioner having been prosecuted.

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of three Judge Bench in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, to contend that there is nothing on record to disclose as to whether mind was applied by the Competent Authority as regards suitability of petitioner for retention in service, and whether the suppression is good enough to disqualify further continuance in service.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar in SLP (C) No.17404/2016 passed on 26.11.2018, whereby two Judge Bench decision of Apex Court, while dealing with earlier decision on the point including the case of Avtar Singh held thus:-

In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.

The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).

We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.

Before we part, we must record our appreciation for the efforts put in by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus Curiae and the assistance rendered by him.

This Court also had an occasion to decide similar issue holding that suppression of criminal prosecution in character antecedents form qua uniformed services, where rectitude and discipline is paramount, can be a good ground for the Competent Authority to either reject the candidature or to discontinue the services, which are not yet confirmed. The relevant extract of the said case is as under:-

The most relevant and crucial factor which dissuades this court from exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner is the suppression of material fact about criminal antecedent in the verification form as held supra. The act of suppression in the verification form reflects adversely on the moral fiber and character of the candidate thereby enabling the employer to oust the petitioner from competition and choose another eligible candidate, though less meritorious, but of clean image and character for induction into the police force.

In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that looking to the nature of service, job requirement on the post of Constable and it's job profile, the act of suppression gives rise to necessary inference that the candidate has a tendency to mislead for his own advantage thereby causing dent in his moral fiber rendering him susceptible to fear and favour thereby making him unfit for disciplined service.

Accordingly, this Court declines interference in the matter and dismisses the present petition.

No cost.