DAVINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-599

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Decided on July 18,2014

DAVINDER SINGH Appellant

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CM No. 4460 of 2014 1. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed. The writ petition is restored back to its original number. CWP No. 15889 of 2011 Counsel says that it is not possible to comply with the directions given on 29.8.2011 since the copy of the form which she has is not legible enough. Counsel is at liberty to make submission on the basis of the documents already filed. The petitioner who was recruited to the CRPF was soon served with termination on the ground that in the application form that he had filled he had failed to make a disclosure of a prosecution of a criminal case for offence under NDPS Act. The contention was that he had been acquitted even before he filled the form and since he was a rustic villager he had not known the actual implication of non disclosure of the prosecution. I have requested the counsel to state what the form required. As it is read out, I gather that the reference is to detail of whether the applicant was at any time prosecuted, detained or convicted for any offence. The fact that the person has obtained acquittal cannot really conclude the issue, for, he was bound to have made a disclosure of the prosecution that was levied against him and a detention that he underwent before the acquittal. He was seeking entry into uniform service that involved national security and had surely required a higher degree of circumspection and care to ensure that no person with shady background obtained recruitment. The counsel also pleads that the petitioner was a rustic villager and he did not know what the form contained. It shall not be easy to disown the recitals contained in the form. Every person who fills the form invariably makes a verification that all the facts detailed are true or no suppression is made. One has to give effect to such solemn undertaking and I will not allow for the person to plead ignorance of what the form contained.
(2.) The impugned order cannot under the circumstances be interfered and the writ petition is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.