JHA, CJ. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition for quashing the orders by which his services had been terminated.
(2.) THE appellant was appointed as a Constable (G. D.) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on purely temporary basis on 23. 10. 2001. On 9. 4. 2002 his services were terminated under proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He preferred appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Inspector General on 10. 9. 2002. He then filed review petition before the Director General but that too was dismissed on 1. 5. 2003. He thereafter filed the writ petition challenging the said orders. The writ petition was dismissed in limine without even calling upon the respondents to file the reply and as such, the stand of the respondents is not on the record. However, from the appellate order of the Inspector General dated 10. 9. 2002, it appears that on the date of his appointment the appellant was involved in a criminal case (FIR No. 66/199 of Shyam Nagar Police Station) as an accused under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the challan had been filed on 26. 5. 1999. The appellant however suppressed the fact that he was facing prosecution. As a matter of fact in Column No. 12 of the application form, he as the candidate was required to furnish information whether he had been prosecuted in any criminal case. He wrote `no' against the column. The application form contained warning to the effect that furnishing false information or suppressing relevant fact would be regarded as ineligibility of the candidate rendering the candidate unsuitable for appointment in government service. The appellant does not dispute that at the time of selection/appointment, the above-said criminal case was pending against him. He took the plea that on 9. 11. 2000 he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, and though he was convicted under Sections 147 and 452 IPC, he was released on furnishing bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. According to the appellant further, under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 does not suffer any disqualification attaching to a conviction for committing any offence under such law. Thus, according to the appellant, by reason of the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case which ultimately ended in conviction under Sections 147 and 452 IPC, his services could not be terminated. It is also the case of the appellant that the provision of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was wrongly applied for terminating his services as said Rules are not applicable to the members of the CRPF. In any case, it is contended, the appellant was entitled to a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing before his services could be terminated. In support of the contention that non-disclosure of the criminal case could not be a ground to terminate the appellant's services, counsel placed reliance on State of Gujarat vs. Anand Acharya @ Bharat Kumar Sadhu, JT 2007 (4) SC 124. We do not find any merit in any of the submissions. The termination of services of appellant, it may at the outset be clarified, was not founded on his conviction in the criminal case and therefore reference to the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is totally misplaced. As indicated above, the services of the appellant were terminated on account of false declaration that he was not involved in any criminal case. A Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 400 has held that where the candidate suppressed the fact that he was prosecuted on a criminal charge, such suppression is an index of his character as not suitable for appointment, and ultimate result of the case is not material. The suppression, it was held, would by itself disentitle the candidate from being appointed in service. In Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437, the respondent was selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidhyalaya and appointment order was issued. The memorandum containing the offer of appointment required him to fill the attestation form para 9 of which stated that "suppression of any information will be considered a major offence for which the punishment may extend to dismissal from the service. " Columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form were as under:- " 12. Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law of any offence? 13. Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form?" The respondent wrote `no. ' against both the columns. He also certified that the information given in the attestation form was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. Later, information was received from the Inspector General of Police that a criminal case under Sections 323, 341, 294 and 506b/34 IPC was pending against the respondent on the date of filling the attestation form. In the circumstances, memorandum was issued to him terminating his services on the ground of suppression of material information. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application. The High Court however allowed the writ petition observing inter alia that the criminal case in which the respondent was involved had been withdrawn by the State Government which meant that the case and the involvement was not serious. It also did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying him from government employment. Allowing the appeal of the Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, the Supreme Court observed as under:- " 11. . . . . The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondents as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear being on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. 12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. . . "
(3.) THE decision was noticed with approval in Secretary Department of Home Secretary, A. P. vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746. The decision in State of Gujarat vs. Anand Acharya @ Bharat Kumar Sadhu (supra) - relied upon on behalf of the appellant, is clearly distinguishable. In that case a departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent alleging that during subsistence of marriage he entered into immoral relationship with his wife's sister from whom a daughter was born, and he thereby committed an act of moral turpitude in terms of rules 3 (1) (3) and 26 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. It was also alleged that the respondent "on his own" did not inform the government about the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 184/1992 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Criminal Case No. 5094/1992 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gandhinagar, and thereby committed breach of rule 18 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The Supreme Court found that the only allegation proved by the Inquiry Officer was non-disclosure of the criminal proceedings pending against him in which the respondent was ultimately acquitted. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent having divorced his first wife, there being nothing to show that he had married her sister, that is, sister- in-law during subsistence of his first marriage, mere non- disclosure of the case in which he was ultimately acquitted would not warrant extreme penalty of dismissal from service. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the HIgh Court modifying the punishment to withholding of two increments on reinstatement in service. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), the object behind seeking information regarding pendency of a criminal case is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents of the candidate in order to judge his suitability for a government job. A person who suppresses the information, and rather furnishes false information that he is not involved in any criminal case- obviously to secure government job, can not be said to possess such character which would justify his appointment or retention in government service. ;