AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Consequent on his selection, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) by communication dated 09.11.2011. The petitioner
thereafter reported in GC, CRPF, Lucknow on 30.11.2011 and filled up his verification roll (CRPF 25). After joining to the service, the petitioner was
sent for 44 weeks training w.e.f. 21.01.2012 which he completed successfully.
As required under normal departmental procedure, the verification roll (CRPF 25) in respect of the petitioner was submitted to the District
Magistrate to verify the antecedents of the petitioner which was accordingly done by a letter dated 21.03.2012 which indicated that there was no
adverse finding against the petitioner. In terms of the report, an order dated 12.12.2012 was issued intimating that the petitioner is fit for CRPF
service. While the petitioner was undergoing basic training, a photocopy of the complaint submitted by Station House Officer, Police Station Barnahal,
Mainpuri (U.P.) was forwarded by DIGP, GC, CRPF Lucknow intimating that a criminal case against the petitioner is registered vide Case No. 459
of 2011 on the basis of an FIR No.76/2011. On receipt of the said complaint, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal proceeding at
the time of recruitment and that it was also noticed that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of false declaration wherein there was
suppression of facts with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in criminal case. However, to verify the veracity of the complaint, District
Magistrate, Mainpuri (U.P.) was again requested by letter dated 01.05.2013 to verify about the genuineness of the police case registered against the
petitioner. Thereafter, a verification report was received from the District Magistrate, Mainpuri by a communication dated 15.06.2013 wherein it was
verified that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner (Shishupal @ Shivpal) at Barnahal P.S.
Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 03.05.2013 was issued to the petitioner by incorporating eight questions wherein the petitioner was to
answer ‘YES’ or ‘NO’. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice by giving his reply as ‘NO’ to all questions made in the
show cause notice dated 03.05.2013. Not being satisfied with the reply, the respondents initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and
on completion of the same, the Commandant 149 Battalion, CRPF/Respondent No.3 issued an order dated 24.06.2014 removing the petitioner from
service from the date of the order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2/ appellate authority which was also
rejected by order dated 23.09.2014. Being aggrieved, the present appeal.
Heard Mr. KU Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. DC Borah, learned CGC for all the respondents.
Mr. KU Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has passed Class-XII and pursuant to an Advertisement appeared
before the respondents for being enlisted as Constable (GD), CRPF. The petitioner on being successful was thereafter appointed as Constable (GD)
on 30.11.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of any criminal proceeding against him and therefore while filling up the verification,
he had in all good faith declared that there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner. However, when the show cause notice dated
03.05.2013 was issued to him, the petitioner being not aware of the criminal case pending against him also gave his reply as ‘NO’ to all the
queries made in the show cause notice. Thereafter, respondents initiated the departmental proceedings which was participated by the petitioner. In the
said departmental proceeding too, the petitioner had deposed that there was no criminal proceeding against him in as much as he was still not aware of
the same at the relevant point of time. However, the petitioner was removed from service by the impugned order dated 24.06.2014. It was only after
the issuance of the impugned order dated 24.06.2014 that the petitioner inquired about the criminal case and he came to learn that a criminal case
No.459 of 2011 was pending against him. Thereafter, the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1 Judicial Magistrate,
Mainpuri by order dated 22.10.2014 acquitted the petitioner along with others from the liability of the criminal case No.459 of 2011. He submits that
any declaration before the respondent was made in good faith inasmuch as at no point of time, the petitioner was informed about the said criminal case
pending against him. However, the respondents had failed to take into consideration about the ignorance of the petitioner and had illegally issued the
impugned order dated 24.06.2014 removing the petitioner from service. He submits that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was about 23 years
of age and therefore , the respondents should have taken into consideration the young age of the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders
instead of removing the petitioner from service which is disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by him. He has placed
reliance in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors â€"vs- Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949
(hereinafter Act of 1949) wherein the provision of minor punishment are provided. He submits that as all the acts of the petitioner was done in good
faith without suppression of any facts, respondents could have imposed any of the minor punishments upon the petitioner instead of removing him from
service. It is also submitted that the petitioner is presently married with two children and is also looking after the old aged parents and therefore he is
undergoing great hardship in view of being removed from service.
Mr. DC Borah, the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that after the selection of the petitioner for appointment to the
post of Constable (GD), it is normal department procedure that the character, antecedents, connection and age of the petitioner is required to be
verified in terms of Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The said verification is done on the basis of the entries made in the verification roll (CRPF 25).
However, the petitioner while filling up the verification roll (CRPF 25) has misled the respondents by indicating that no criminal case was registered
against the petitioner. Thereafter, when the verification was made, the District Magistrate, Mainpuri (U.P) had initially given a report on 21.03.2012
stating that there was no adverse finding against the petitioner. However, when the DIGP, GC, CRPF received a complaint submitted by the SHO, PS
Barnahal, the second verification was made by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri wherein it was reported that there was a criminal case registered
against the petitioner. It was on the basis of the adverse verification report that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by
issuing show cause notice wherein queries were made. However, the petitioner had again misled the respondents by replying in the negative to all
queries. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority by letter dated 17.05.2014. The disciplinary authority on
verifying the proceedings of the departmental enquiry was satisfied that the enquiry was conducted as per Rules by giving the petitioner enough
opportunity of being heard and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner had imposed the penalty of removal from
service in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 by the order dated 24.06.2014. The petitioner had
also made an appeal against his removal from service which was also rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 23.09.2014. In that view of
the matter, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 24.06.2014.
I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the present case in hand, it is seen that when the
petitioner after being selected for being appointed to the post of constable (GD) had filled up his verification roll indicating that there was no criminal
case pending against him. The said entry was verified and in the second report of the District Magistrate, Mainpuri (UP) dated 15.06.2013 it was
detected that there was a criminal case pending against him. It was on the basis of the said report that the departmental proceeding against the
petitioner had started which culminated in issuance of the order dated 26.04.2014 removing the petitioner from service. It is to be noted that in the
show cause notice dated 03.05.2013, eight questions were made wherein the petitioner had to make his reply either in the affirmative or in the
negative. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner replied in the negative to all the queries made in the show cause notice. In the proceedings
of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner had also deposed in the negative with regard to the pendency of the criminal case against him. This Court
has also taken into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only after the order dated 24.06.2014 was issued
removing the petitioner from service that he had enquired about the criminal case pending against him. The petitioner was however acquitted by the
learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division ) Mainpuri in Case No.459 of 2011.
It is also to be taken into consideration that when the incident took place, the petitioner was about 23 years old and considering his young age, there
is every possibility of committing indiscretion by the petitioner either out of fearness or otherwise. Therefore, it would have been proper to have
approached the matter by the respondents by condoning the indiscretion instead of taking the harsh step of removing the petitioner from service.
The case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) is also similar to the case in hand where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made its observation as under :
“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.
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.â€
This Court after consideration of the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case is also of the considered opinion that the approach of the
respondent was harsh and disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned
order dated 24.06.2014 as well as the order of the appellate dated 23.09.2014 are set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith
reinstate the petitioner back in service with continuity in service along with consequential service benefits. Petitioner shall also be entitled to 50% of
backwages. Such exercise be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondents.
Liberty is however given to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and thereafter may impose any minor punishment upon the petitioner as
prescribed under Section-11 of the Act, 1949 if so advised. Writ petition is accordingly allowed however with no order as to cost.