Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner was selected as a Constable/Driver with the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF') as per selections process adopted by them under an advertisement issued, an appointment order was issued on 9.1.2009 and he joined on 17.01.2009. Before issuing appointment order, an attestation form was asked to be submitted wherein there were several clauses and it was mentioned by him in the answer to question whether he had ever been prosecuted as 'No' after striking of 'Yes'. In the appointment order, there was also a condition to submit a Certificate of Character and antecedents from local SHO dully filled in completely and signed. The said Certificate form alongwith character and antecedents was also submitted on 13.01.2009 wherein the SHO has mentioned that a case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341 IPC wherein the petitioner had been acquitted by way of compromise by the Court of ACJ(JD) No.1, Alwar on 29.05.2004. After having joined, an order came to be passed on 10th September, 2010 in pursuance to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 and Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 26 of CISF Rules, 2001 terminating services of the petitioner from the post of Constable/Driver. The petitioner has assailed the said order.
(2.) It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that there had not been any material concealment by the petitioner while there was a doubt in his mind regarding the Column in the attestation form, still the Certificate issued by the SHO which was also annexed along clearly mentions that there was a case registered against him in which he had been acquitted. It is also submitted that offences for which the petitioner had been earlier prosecuted were of minor nature relating to quarrel under Section 323 and 341 IPC and were compoundable. It is further submitted that as the Certificate is dated 13.01.2009 and the petitioner was appointed subsequently on 17.01.2009, the same cannot be said to be in any manner concealment within the meaning as understood for the purpose of assessing the character of individual and thereby denying appointment.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon recent view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2016 8 SCC 471 wherein the Apex Court has laid down as under :- "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, 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. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information 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 the case may be adopted : - 38.4.1. 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, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 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. 38.5. 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. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. 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 services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." It is submitted that the case was of a trivial nature and if all the relevant facts are considered, it does not in any manner affect his service as a Constable/Driver. More over, there has not been a deliberate suppression on his part and is not disclosing of the information in the attestation form stands falsified with the subsequent character Certificate submitted by the SHO which mentions about such an acquittal in the criminal case registered against him. It is further submitted that after having joined to the service in January, 2009 he has put in appearance more than one year and eight months service and in the circumstances, therefore, the termination order could not have been passed.;