Dalbir Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
! "#$ %& '( Date of Decision: 25.03.2019 Dalbir Singh .....Appellant versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ') *'
+, +'
- + *'
+
- Present :
Mr. RK Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** , +'
- +& ( '
.#$/ "#$ % Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
! "#$ % This intra/court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 dismissing the writ petition challenging the order dated 20.05.2008 whereby the appellant was discharged from police service. A further relief for issuance of a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post with all consequential benefits was also claimed.
2.
Undisputed facts in brief relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy can be summarized as under:/ The appellant was enrolled as a Constable vide order dated 18.09.2006. Even before he joined the service in police department, a
criminal case bearing FIR No. 58 of 2004 under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar. On this fact coming to the knowledge of the authorities, it was discovered that this fact was not disclosed in the requisite column No. 24 of the recruitment form and thus finding that the appointment order was obtained by concealment and also a false undertaking was submitted on the date of recruitment that he has not been guilty in any case nor has been arrested, he was discharged from service vide order dated 20.05.2008. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of discharge was dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2009.
3.
The record reveals that after filing of the charge sheet by the police department against the appellant and one another co/accused, the trial was held against them before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar and vide order dated 05.08.2008 they were acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt.
4.
It is also to be taken note of that another FIR No. 171 of 2009 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was got registered by the department against the appellant for concealing the fact regarding registration of FIR No. 58 of 2004 under section 380 read with section 457 of the Indian Penal Code against him at the time of his recruitment/appointment. The charge/sheet was filed in this case also and the trial was held in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, the appeal filed by him was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2012 and he was acquitted of the charges for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that once he was discharged by the trial Court in FIR No. 58 of 2004 he could not have been discharged from service without even affording an opportunity of hearing.
6.
The argument is misconceived. The order discharging the appellant from service was not passed on account of the criminal proceedings but on the charge of having concealed the pendency of a criminal case against him and not disclosing the correct information in the requisite column No. 24 of the recruitment form and filing of a false undertaking in Column No.D of the same form.
7.
This issue is no longer res/integra. For resolving the conflict of opinion expressed in various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the question of suppression of information and submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to the pendency of a criminal case, the matter was referred for decision to a larger Bench in the case of
The reference was answered by the larger Bench by making the following observations:/
!
" !
#
#
!
#
!
#
!
$
!
!
#
%
#
&
!
!
$
'
!
! (
!
) 8.
Since the appellant admittedly had suppressed material information with regard to the pendency of a criminal case registered against him before entering into the service and also made a false declaration, he had been discharged from service in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12.21 of the Appointment and Enrolment Rules which empowers the Appointing Authority to discharge a constable if he is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer.
9.
In view of the law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
and the facts of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.
10.
The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge thus does not require any interference. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
!"#$ Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No