Prashant Kumar Singh vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.—This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the services of the petitioner as recruit/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force, (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) has been terminated and his name has been struck off the strength of the rolls.

The petitioner was enlisted as recruit/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force on 25.11.2004. Upon enlistment the petitioner was required to fill up and submit a Verification Roll as required under Rule 14(b) of The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereafter referred to as 1955 Rules). The said Verification Roll required specific information on 12 points as mentioned in the format, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure CA-I to the Counter Affidavit. Clause 12 of the format of the Verification Roll consisted of two parts. Sub clause (a) required information as to whether the candidate had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examinations/selections or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution. Further sub clause (b) required information as to whether any case was pending against the candidate in any Court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up of the Verification Roll. It further required if answer of the sub clause (a) and (b) was ''yes'' then the details were to be provided.

The petitioner filled up the Verification Roll and submitted the same on 28.11.2004. Against the sub clauses (a) and (b) of the clause 12 of the Verification Roll the petitioner mentioned ''no''. The Verification Rolls are sent to the District Magistrate''s of the native place of the candidates for character verification. In the present case the District Magistrate, Jaunpur informed the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Group Centre, Allahabad mentioning that a criminal case being Case Crime No.68 of 2001, under Sections 325/323/504 IPC was registered against the petitioner in which the charge sheet had been submitted to the Court on 18.04.2001 and the same was pending trial. Based upon the said information, received from the District Magistrate, Jaunpur a show cause notice dated 3.3.2006 was issued by the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Allahabad calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated for concealment and suppression of material fact. Thereafter by order dated 4.8.2006 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Central Sector, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow which has been dismissed by order of the said authority dated 30.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same the present petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned counsel representing the respondents.

The fact with regard to the registration of the criminal case, submission of the charge sheet and the trial being pending on the date of submission of the Verification Roll are not disputed. Thus, the fact remains that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that a criminal case has been registered and was pending on the date of the filling up of the Verification Roll.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the alleged incident in respect of which the criminal case had been registered was on account of heated arguments which had taken place in the village between Dhanajay Singh and the informant. The petitioner had been falsely roped in the said case. The petitioner was a young man aged abut 20 years at the time of the said incident and it may be that on the spur of the movement he may have been involved in the said incident. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. The crime if any is alleged against the petitioner could be on account of the instigation or the heated arguments which had taken place between the two parties. The incident of causing injury was not premeditated nor planned. The crime was not as a result of any sinister design or heinous in nature or involving moral turpitude. It was not a case of theft, loot, dacoity, rape, murder or cheating. It is further submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused have been acquitted of the charges in the Trial, vide judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure SRA-I to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 20.05.2011. A perusal of the judgment of acquittal indicates that the informant and the injured stated before the Trial Court that no injury had been caused by any of the accused; the injuries had been caused due to own falling down of the injured; the report had been lodged on the instigation of the acquaintances of the village.

It is next submitted that the petitioner apparently may not have understood the import of the question as framed in the sub clauses (a) and (b) of the clause 12 of the Verification Roll being a complex question requiring answer to a large number of facts, of which one of them was as to whether the candidate had been arrested or prosecuted or that any case was pending. The answer given by the petitioner could have been a result of not actually being able to understand and comprehend the question. Apart from the pendency of the criminal case the answer to all other queries would have been ''no'' and as such the answer given by the petitioner may be treated to be near truth and may not be treated to be a case of deliberate or intentional suppression of material facts.

It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pressure of getting a Government job is too high for a young man coming from rural background to sustain. Once the petitioner was selected on his own merits, after facing the required competition, the petitioner under apprehension that he might not lose his job, may have fallen into trap of not disclosing the fact regarding pendency of the case. This fault may not be treated to be such a serious misconduct so as to be punished by an order of dismissal from service. The punishment imposed would be too harsh to the alleged misconduct.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is at the mercy of the Court and he having served for almost two years from November, 2004 till July, 2006 he will have to face grave hardship for survival.

In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following two decisions-

Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, .

Judgement of this Court in the case of Satya Prakash Pandey versus Union of India and others, reported in 2010 (7) ADJ 297 (LB).

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court and this Court squarely apply to the case of the petitioner and in both the cases the Court while dealing with the similar controversy has decided in favour of the employees.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner having started his career with falsehood is not fit enough to be retained in government service and the order of termination and the appellate order affirming the termination are just, valid and legal, not warranting any interference. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, .

Having considered the submissions advanced the Court proceeds to first examine the case laws relied upon by the parties, as the facts are more or less not disputed.

The case of Satya Prakash Pandey (supra) relates to the cancellation of appointment of a constable in the CRPF, the same organisation in which the petitioner was selected. The petitioner therein had also mentioned ''no'' against the sub clauses (a) & (b) of clause 12 of the Verification Roll. The petitioner in that case was 20 years of age at the time when the offence was said to have been committed by him. The offence was of causing injury and was registered under sections 147/323/504/506 I.P.C. This Court in its judgment had dealt with the similar arguments as raised in the present case. The Court came to the conclusion that the information sought vide sub clauses (a) & (b) of clause 12 was complex in nature and the answer ''no'' to the composite question would not amount to false supply or suppression of material fact. Relevant extract of the judgment as stated in paragraph 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the report in the case of Satya Prakash Pandey (supra) are reproduced below-

This line of argument can not be readily accepted by the Court but definitely leaves a mark on the mind. When a series of questions are asked and one word answer is required, it often becomes difficult to give a correct answer. In the present case, it was a young man who was just beginning his carrier with a natural nervousness of being recruited to police force. His excitement may have forced the petitioner to commit such a mistake which can not conclusively be termed as deliberate perjury. It can be clearly seen that composite questions can not be answered in ''Yes'' or ''No''. In the present case no separate columns have been assigned for giving the details....

It would have been clear and practicable for the candidate to answer properly and correctly but when eight different shades of questions are being combined in one column and the answer has to be given in ''Yes'' or ''No'', naturally, a young boy of twenty years can not be expected to write ''Yes'' because in the present case he was not prosecuted nor kept under detention nor bound down nor fined nor convicted by a court of law. Hence, his answer is ''No'' to this question can not be taken as a big offence rendering him totally ineligible for appointment.

In the world of today when job opportunities are shrinking, a young lad of twenty years can hardly be expected to go an extra mile to inform the authorities about a case which can get him rejected at the threshold. If a specific question is not asked he can not be expected to analyze the query by himself and prepare the answer which is prejudicial to his interest. Social and economic pressure on a young boy in today''s society is a reality. The moral values which are otherwise vanishing can not be stretched beyond a limit. The virtues and values in a candidate should be decided on a practical apparatus. Realities of life can not be wished away. In the present case, when the petitioner was neither convicted nor fined nor bound down nor prosecuted nor debarred from appearing in any examination, his answer to clause 12 as ''No'' can be read as near truth. The Inspector in-charge Police Station-Unchahar as well as the Superintendent of Police of the District have verified his character as being good, the certificate of good moral character has been issued by the Village Pradhan. On inquiry no adverse material has come out against him nor any complaint was made to the police by any of the villagers.

On the basis of the arguments and the material on record, the Court is convinced that the answer ''No'' to the composite question put in Clause 12 of the ''Verification Roll'' does not amount to supply of false information or suppression of material facts as envisaged under Clause -3 of the said Roll.

The case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) decided by the Apex Court was a case which had initially been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However the writ petition filed by Sandeep Kumar was allowed by the Delhi High Court. It was against the judgment of the Delhi High Court that the Commissioner of Police had appealed before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. In the said case also Sandeep Kumar had not disclosed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34I.P.C. Although in the said case before filling up of the Verification Form the said criminal case had been compromised and Sandeep Kumar along with his family had been acquitted on 18.1.1998 whereas the selection had been held in the year 1999 but still, the law laid down would be applicable to the facts of the present case as the question was not only of the pendency or the involvement in a criminal case but the question is of suppression of material fact. The Apex Court while dealing with the arguments had held that the approach of the Courts should be to condone the minor indiscretions made by the young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. It further held that modern approach should be to reform the youth instead of branding them as criminals all their lives.

The Apex Court after considering the observations of Lord Denning in the case of Morris versus Crown Officer, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 held that the Court should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. It would be worthwhile to quote the observations of the Lord Denning in the case of Morris (supra)

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.

The Apex Court also took into consideration that the offence was not a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape hence a more lenient view should be taken.

The Division Bench judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case of Surendra Singh Yadav (supra), while holding the order of termination on similar grounds to be valid has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court (i) Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, (ii) Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another versus Girdharilal Yadav reported in 2004 (6) SCC 325 (iii) Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (iv) Lilly Kutty Vs. Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and Others, after ignoring the following two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court (I) Anuj Kumar versus D.I.G. Karmik, PHQ and others-C.M.W.P. No.4591 of 1999 decided on dated 24.9.1999 (ii) Udai Vir Singh versus Union of India and others-C.M.W.P. No. 3045 (S/S) of 2003 decided on 28.1.2004, only on the ground that they could no longer be held to be good law in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court. In my view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh Yadav (supra) loses its effect in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), which is more recent in point of time.

It may be noted here that learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that apart from the solitary criminal case registered against the petitioner there was any other material which may further damage or adversely reflect upon the character of the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) being recent in point of time squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Thus the orders impugned in this petition terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order 4.8.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

There shall however be no order as to costs.