Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking to quash orders dated 02-03-2016 and 28-03-2018, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain*, JJ., opined that there had to be strict obedience towards disclosure of their criminal antecedents by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces and invariably, there was no room for the one who endeavoured to seek employment by concealing material fact about his criminal antecedents. The Court opined that there was deliberate suppression of material facts with respect to a criminal case, which was pending at the time when the forms were filled up by the petitioner. Thus, the respondents were justified in terminating the petitioner.
Background
In an instant case, on 28-07-2014, the petitioner joined as Sub-Inspector in Indo Tibetan Border Police and pursuant to such employment the petitioner had to submit documents and fill up forms which included Verification Roll Form and Form of Enrolment. The petitioner was required to divulge whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted or convicted for any offence or not. However, the petitioner claimed that he was never involved in any criminal case.
Later, when the forms were sent for police verification, it came to fore that he was involved in one criminal case for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860, which was sub judice in the Court of ACJM-II, Dehradun. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with show cause notice as to why his services should not be terminated for concealment of material fact. However, the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice, but he did send communication informing the respondents that the matter was pending in the Uttarakhand High Court and was likely to be finalized very soon as the matter had been compromised.
On 02-03-2016, the respondents issued the impugned order, whereby the petitioner’s services were terminated with immediate effect under Rule 22 of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992. The petitioner also submitted representation and appealed for his reinstatement and stated that he had been in that case on account proceedings, the proceedings had been quashed on 05-10-2016. However, vide order dated 28-03-2018, his representation seeking reinstatement was dismissed.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court on perusal of the questions given in Form of Enrolment, opined that a bare reading of the questions indicated that there was nothing technical or complex in nature. The questions were very simple, specific, and separately framed. Even though the petitioner had been booked in a criminal case and remained in custody from 28-03-2010 till 13-04-2010, he supressed these facts of his involvement in criminal case.
The Court noted the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents and opined that the petitioner had nowhere claimed that he was unable to understand any question. Rather, in his letter dated 27-01-2018, he claimed that such reply was on account of his bona fide mistake and he did not realize that such non-disclosure would invite termination. Moreover, when the respondents pointed out in affidavit that he had remained behind the bars in the said case, he did not controvert and, did not file any rejoinder. Thus, his only endeavour was to suppress the facts so that he could secure employment.
Further, the Court opined that when the petitioner was issued provisional appointment letter on 28-07-2014, it was mentioned that his appointment was provisional and in case, any of his claim in the Verification Roll Form was found to be false, his services would be terminated. However, the petitioner took these warnings nonchalantly. The Court opined that there was deliberate suppression of material facts with respect to a criminal case, which was pending at the time when the forms were filled up by the petitioner. Thus, the respondents were justified in terminating the petitioner.
The Court opined that the petitioner could not plead ignorance about such case in which he was arrested and even remained behind the bars. Even if for a moment, it was assumed that the query contained in 12(a) of Verification Roll Form in English version was complex as several questions had been interwoven, but the same form also contained the same query in Hindi which conveyed everything very appropriately. Further, in Enrolment Form, the questions had been bifurcated which removed possibility of any uncertainty or ambiguity.
The Court relied on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, wherein it was observed that the key issue in such type of matters was neither the triviality of the matter or subsequent acquittal but was of credibility and trustworthiness of such employee, and opined that in the present case, the petitioner could not claim that the offences were trivial and that since he was only nineteen years of age when the incident happened, the approach should be condoned.
Thus, the Court opined that there had to be strict obedience towards such type of disclosure by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces and invariably, there was no room for the one who endeavoured to seek employment by concealing material fact about his criminal antecedents and dismissed the petition.
[Bineet Singh Bisht v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7887, decided on 12-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Manoj Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ashish Dixit, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Rajesh Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI and Ramneet Kaur, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Criminal antecedents in my opinion shall apply to all job stake holders in pgovt ir non govt or ngo as it is eroding image of org..