Bishu Pratap Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case Overview
Applications & Status
Allowed- CISF Rules, 2001 (Rule 26(4))
- Article 311(2) of the Constitution
- Supreme Court Guidelines in Avtar Singh (2016)
Case: W.P.(C) 11083/2022
Parties: Mr Bishnu Pratap Vs. UOI Through Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit, Greater Noida (U.P.), terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner also challenges the Orders dated 03.09.2021 and 06.09.2021, by which his representation against the order of termination has been rejected by the respondents.
Case of the petitioner:
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied to the post of Constable/sweeper in the year 2017 with the CISF. During the selection process, the petitioner was named as an accused in an FIR bearing No. 138/2018 at Police Station Mau, Distt. Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, for an incident on 14.05.2018, alleging that he had physically assaulted the victim along with his brother after entering the house of the victim. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide a Judgment dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge.
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable [CT/TM(Swpr)] on 07.01.2019, and he attended his training programme at RTC Barwaha Unit, Dist. Khargoni, Madhya Pradesh. After completing the training, he received his first posting at CISF Unit SSG Greater Noida, on 23.06.2019. While he was serving in the said Unit, he received a Show Cause Notice dated 03.09.2019, issued to him by the Commandant CISF Unit Greater Noida, stating that he has concealed the fact of the registration of the above-mentioned FIR. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice, however, by the Impugned Order dated 21.12.2020, he was terminated from service.
As noted hereinabove, his representations against the termination were also rejected vide Orders dated 03.09.2021 and 06.09.2021. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere suppression of a fact of registration of an FIR may not be sufficient to terminate the service of the petitioner. In support, he places reliance on the policy guidelines dated 01.02.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, as also on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union Of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case, the petitioner filled his attestation form, which was also in vernacular, on 28.12.2018. She submits that the form warned the candidates that any false information provided in the form will be a ground for terminating the service of the candidate. In spite of such warning, the petitioner chose to conceal the factum of registration of the above-mentioned FIR and the pendency of the criminal case against him. She submits that, therefore, this itself was a sufficient ground to terminate the services of the petitioner, not only in terms of the policy guidelines referred hereinabove, but also in terms of Rule 26 (4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (in short, ‘CISF Rules’).
Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 14 SCC 103 and Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, she submits that suppression of a vital fact, such as registration of an FIR, itself is a ground to terminate the services of the petitioner.
She submits that, even otherwise, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case being only for the reason of extension of the benefit of doubt, cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal, and no benefit thereof can be obtained by the petitioner.
Analysis and findings:
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
In the present case, a reading of the Impugned Orders would show that the only reason for terminating the service of the petitioner is the concealment of the registration of the FIR against him. Though the Order dated 03.09.2021 makes a reference to the acquittal of the petitioner in the said criminal case, it does not further state that the acquittal is not being considered as it was because of an extension of a benefit of doubt and was not honourable. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the acquittal not being honourable cannot be considered or come to the aid of the petitioner, cannot be accepted.
As noted hereinabove, the only ground for terminating the service of the petitioner is the suppression of the registration of the FIR and the pendency of the criminal case against him. In Avtar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the law applicable to cases of suppression of fact and effect thereof, has held as under:
“30. The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service...
32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services...
35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases...
38.4.3. If acquittal had already 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 all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.”
In Avtar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has inter alia held that while passing an order of termination of service or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take into account the special circumstances of the case, if any. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily, and the exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity, having due regard to facts of the case. Not every technical or trivial matter being suppressed can lead to termination of service.
In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532, after considering the Judgment of Avtar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated as under:-
“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”
Applying the standards specified by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases:
Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner was one with respect to a fight which took place in the village between two youth. The injured in the case did not support the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was, therefore, acquitted of the criminal charges.
Rule 26(4) of the CISF Rules reads as under:-
“26. Termination
xxxxx
(4) During the period of probation or its extension thereof, as the case may be, the appointing authority may without assigning any reason terminate the services of a member of the Force on the grounds of furnishing false or incorrect information at the time of appointment of that member of the Force or for his failure to pass the basic training or repeat course, by tendering a notice of one month to that effect or one month’s pay in lieu thereof.”
The above Rule also vests discretion with the appropriate authority to consider the effect of suppression and pass an appropriate order thereon. The discretion must be exercised keeping in view all the relevant facts. Mere suppression of the fact, therefore, may not be sufficient to terminate the services.
Conclusion:
In view of the above, the Impugned Orders dated 21.12.2020, 03.09.2021, and 06.09.2021 passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post of Constable [CT/TM(Swpr)] on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in the selection process. We, however, make it clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force, but at the same time, he will be entitled to all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits etc.
The petition is allowed in the above terms.
October 1, 2024.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For Petitioner(s)
- Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Adv.
- Mr. Subhash Tanwar, Adv.
- Mr. Naveen, Adv.
- Mr. Harshit Deshwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
- Ms. Roma Bhagat, Adv.
- Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
- Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Adv.
- Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following order:
The writ petition, alongwith pending application, is disposed of with the directions indicated in the signed judgment, which is placed on file.