Balram Shukla, Uttar Pradesh v. Prl. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And 3 Oth

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT APPEAL NO: 550 OF 2016 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed in WP No. 2299112012 on the file of the High Court. Between:

Balram Shukla, S/o Shri Ram Asrey Shukla Aged about 33 years, Occ: Ei.C.i.c.r.ruo.03141gB72,0/o commahdant 141 Bn c.R,P.F., Hyderabad, A P , R/o Sinshpur, Post Jahanseer Gunj, Ambedkar Nasar, ,:li!El?tii,1;rE.,oNER AND Union of lndia, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

ihe lnspector General of Police,, Southern Sector C.R.P F.' Keshogiri' Hyderabad, A.P.

O6prtvl"ip".tor General of Police,' Southern. Sector' C.R P F , Hyderabad, A.P.

Commandant, 141.BN C.R.P.F. Hyderabad, O.t., -...*uaro*oENTS/REspoNDENrs 1.

2.

?

4.

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. RACHNA KUMARI Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI N. RAJESHWAR RAO ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

THE ON'BLE THE CHITF JUSTICE SATISH tu AND THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE N. TUKARAMJI V/RIT APPEAL No.55O of 2016 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble tte Chief Justice Satish Chandra Shdrlna) The present writ appea.l is arising out of the judgment dated 31 .03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2299t of 2Ot2.

The undisputed facts of the case revea_l that the appellant before this Court was appointed as Constable in the services of Centra-l Reserve police Force. However, in the verification Roll under Column 12-A, he has suppressed the information regarding involvement in a criminal case by mentioning ,No,. In tl:ose circumstances, his services were put to an end by an order dated 05.06.2005 against which an appeal was preferred. The same was dismissed on 05.02.2006. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under:- "4. In the instant case, the petitioner herein was appointed in the year 2OO3 as constable in the Central Reserved Police Force. In the verification Roll under Column 72-A i.e., with regard to involvement in Criminal Cases, the petitioner herein admittediy mentioned as 'No'. On the ground that the petitiEa{r herein falsely mentioned about his involvement in the

criminal case, the 4d' rcspondent herein terminated the petitioner from the service.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the said aspect cannot be treated as fatal as the petitioner herein was acquitted of the criminal charges subsequentlY'

6. This question is no longer Res integra' lt the case of B.RamaKrishna Yadav and another Vs' The Superintendent of Police and Another (2016(2) ALD 340), a full bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos'11 and 12, heid as under:

"77. In this backdrop, tDe would nou like to deal tuith tlle question thot falts for our consideration' Suppression of information bA the candidate regarding his inuotuement in a crtminat ccrse is onething and whether to appoint or to terminate such person afler the information of his inuolvement in a ciminal is surlaced is another. Similarlg, whether to appoint such person, who has fairly disclosed the inforrnation of his inuoluement tn o ciminot case in the application fomt, is also a questiorL, uhich the appointing authoritA has to decrde ln other words, 1l is for the emploger/ appointing autlLoitA to take a call and. decide whether such petson should be appointed hauing regard to uaious factors that could be takefl into considerdtion'

77.I In the present c(1se, we are consideing a situation ttthere there ll')cts suppression of inJormation relating to inuoluement in a ciminal case bg th.e candidate. Keeping thot in uietu and Lnvtng regard to tlg judgments of tlle Supreme Court and tlle pinciples a)lled out therein" ute are of the opinion, if a candidate uere to suPPress tle information relating to his tnuoluement in a ciminal case and if it is surfaced before appointment or at the stage of ueification of antecedents' more particularlg when such an informatioft was specificalty sought for, it is open to the appointing authoitA to denA apPointntenl to or temttlote such emplolTee.

72. Verifcatton of character and antecedents is one of the important features in seruice juisprudence so as to fi.nd out uhether a se\ected cqndidate is )

L s-uitable to the post. Hauing regard to th_e antecedents of a candidate, if appointing authoitg finds that it is not desirable to appoint such person, in parTtcular to a discipline force, it can deny employment or euen tenninate such person, if oppointed, u.)ithin the shorrest possible time from the date of ueification of character and antecedents. ?his has to be scruputously foltoued in case of recruitment tn poltce force, it being a disctpttned force. As obserued bV the Supreme Courl it Commissioner of Police, Netu Dethi u. Mehar Shgh ((2013) 7 SCC 685), peopte repose great Jctith and conf.dence in the poltce force, and therefore, the selected candidate must be of confid.ence, impeccable character and integitA. A person hauing ciminal antecedents is, undoubtedlA, not fit in this category, more particularlA u.)hen he has stlppressed the informatton about his inuoluement in criminal case(s) irrespectiue of the fact LDhetller the case uas pending or tle uas acEitted..'

7. In view of the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed_ Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs."

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (Special Leave petition (C) No.20525 of 20i1, dated 21.07.2016) and her contention is that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the appointing authority keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.

This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment 1S reproduced as under:- "30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aioresaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: (1) lnformation given to the etnployer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or a-rrest, 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.

(21 While passing order of termination of serzices or cancellation of candidature for giving false information' the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case' if a;ry, while giving such information.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/ insLructions / rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision' (4) In case there is suppression or false iniormation 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 recourse appropriate to ttle case may be adopted : - (a) 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, tlte employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapSe.

(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may

cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

(c) If acquittal had atready 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 a1l relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

(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.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of triviai nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision o[ such case.

\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 serl,ices as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

(8) If crimina.l case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of frlling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision aJter considering the seriousness of the crime. i I

(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enqulfy would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

i !

(10) For determining suppression or fa.lse information attestation/verihcation form has to be specific, not vague.

Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed lf information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge oI the employer the same can be considered in al objectrve manner while addressing the question of lttness. However, in such cascs action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting lalse inlormation as to a fact which was not even asked for'

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressto uen or suggestio/alsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

Paragraph 30(4) of the aforesaid judgment deals with certain contingencies in respect of conviction or acquittal already been recorded before the filing of application/verification form' However' in the present case, the acquittal was on O1'10'2003 and the appointment was done on 16'06'2003' Meaning thereby' at the time when the form was submitted' there was no acquittal at all and therefore, tl-re judgment relied upon does not help the appellant and no case for interference is made out in the matter'

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed' The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha-il stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs'

I SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Smt' Rachna Kumari Advocqle [OPUC].

2. One cc to sri Namavara;;'ii:jl!'i,liJ nid, ns-sislant Solicitor General (oPUC) I TwoCCstoGPForHome,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana[OUT] Two CD CoPies One Spare CoPY MBC NPJ$\x

HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212021 l rii s & o 1,a.

!) {j 08r[32 1A

JUDGMENT

WA.No.550 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,X{: