- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Avtar Singh
Factual and Procedural Background
The Union of India and its officers filed an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against a Single Judge's judgment dated 3 February 2010, which had allowed a writ petition and held that the termination order dated 24 August 1995 (P-1) did not disclose any reason for terminating the services of the petitioner-respondent. The Single Judge also found the appellate order dated 24 April 1996 (P-9) to be non-speaking. The Single Judge observed that when the petitioner-respondent was enlisted on 24 August 1994 and when he filled the verification form on 9 December 1994, no case was pending against him because he had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una by judgment dated 2 May 1994, which the Single Judge recorded had been upheld up to the Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
The factual matrix (not in dispute) is as follows:
- 24 August 1994: Petitioner-respondent enlisted as Constable (GD) in CRPF, Pinjore; he reported for duty on 27 August 1994.
- 9 December 1994: Petitioner-respondent filled the Verification Roll (later produced in the appeal as Mark 'A').
- 31 January 1995: The Verification Roll was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Una (H.P.) for character and antecedents verification.
- 23 May 1995: The Deputy Commissioner informed that FIR No. 356 dated 28 October 1992 under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC was registered against the petitioner-respondent and was pending.
- 24 August 1995 (P-1): On the basis of that report, the Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF, Pinjore terminated the petitioner-respondent's services.
- The petitioner-respondent appealed (P-3), admitting pendency but pointing out his acquittal dated 2 May 1994 (P-2) and asserting there was no pending case on the date of enlistment.
- 24 April 1996 (P-9): DIGP, CRPF, Chandigarh dismissed the appeal and found the termination order to be in order.
- The petitioner-respondent filed CWP No. 9550 of 1996; the Single Judge allowed that writ petition on 3 February 2010. The Union appealed that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner-respondent's omission to disclose the existence of FIR No. 356/92 in the Verification Roll (filled on 9 December 1994) constituted suppression of material information justifying termination of his services.
- Whether an acquittal recorded earlier (judgment dated 2 May 1994) precludes an appointing/disciplinary authority from treating antecedents or the pendency/non-disclosure of criminal proceedings as a ground for termination or rejection of service.
- Whether the Single Judge's interference with the termination and appellate orders (dated 24.8.1995 and 24.4.1996 respectively) was legally sustainable in view of the Verification Roll and relevant Supreme Court authorities cited by the appellants.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (Union of India and officers)
- The Verification Roll (filled by the petitioner-respondent on 9.12.1994 and produced as Mark 'A') contains explicit warnings and mandatory disclosure requirements (Columns 12(a) and 12(b)) about arrests, prosecutions, convictions and pending cases; failure to disclose such information would amount to suppression of factual information.
- The petitioner-respondent did not disclose anything in Column 12 despite being aware of FIR No. 356/92; therefore the termination order dated 24.8.1995 was justified.
- The Single Judge's conclusion was contrary to established Supreme Court authorities which recognise that antecedents are relevant to suitability for service even where there has been an acquittal.
Petitioner-Respondent's Arguments
- In his appeal (P-3) against the termination, the petitioner-respondent admitted there had been a criminal case but pointed out that he had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una by judgment dated 2.5.1994 (P-2), and contended that on the date of enlistment no police/court case was pending against him.
- He denied that he had concealed anything in the Verification Roll and relied upon his acquittal as the basis for challenging termination.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 | The antecedents and character of a candidate are relevant criteria for suitability for appointment; even if a candidate has been discharged or acquitted in criminal proceedings, the appointing authority may legitimately regard such antecedents as making appointment undesirable. | The court relied on the principle to reject the Single Judge's reasoning that acquittal barred consideration of antecedents; it held that the appointing authority's focus on antecedents could justify termination/non-appointment despite an acquittal. |
| Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779 | Approval by a larger bench of the principle that antecedents are relevant and may be considered even where a candidate has been acquitted. | The court noted that the view in Sushil Kumar was approved by a three-Judge Bench in this case and relied on that approval to find no sustainable ground to uphold the Single Judge's decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in stages, constrained strictly by the material on record:
- Examination of the Verification Roll: The appellants produced a photocopy of the Verification Roll (filled on 9.12.1994 and marked 'A'). The Roll contains a prominent bilingual warning that furnishing false information or suppressing factual information would disqualify a candidate and could render the candidate unfit for government employment; it also required immediate communication of any later detention/conviction and provided that discovery of false information during service could render services liable to termination.
- Specific disclosure requirements: Column 12(a) required disclosure of past arrests, prosecutions, detention, fines, convictions and debarments; Column 12(b) required disclosure of any case pending at the time of filling the form. If answers to either were 'Yes', full details were required. The court reproduced Column 12 in extenso to show the mandatory nature of the disclosure.
- Application to facts: The court found that the petitioner-respondent left Column 12 blank despite being aware of FIR No. 356/92 (dated 28.10.1992) under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC. Although he had been acquitted on 2.5.1994, the court emphasised that the Verification Roll nevertheless required disclosure of the antecedent and any pending proceedings.
- Precedential support: The court disagreed with the Single Judge's reasoning and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar which holds that antecedents are an important criterion for suitability and that an acquittal does not eliminate the relevance of antecedents to appointment/termination decisions. The court further noted that this view was approved by a three-Judge Bench in Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish.
- Conclusion from legal application: Given the mandatory disclosure requirement in the Verification Roll and the petitioner's failure to disclose the FIR, read together with the settled principle that antecedents may legitimately influence appointment/service decisions even after acquittal, the court concluded that the Single Judge's decision could not stand.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the impugned judgment dated 3 February 2010 is set aside, and the orders dated 24 August 1995 (P-1) and 24 April 1996 (P-9) are upheld.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The appellate court's decision restores and upholds the disciplinary/terminatory action taken against the petitioner-respondent by upholding the termination order (P-1) and the appellate authority's order (P-9).
- Broader precedent: The court applied existing Supreme Court authority (Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar and Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish) to support its conclusion. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it applied established precedent to the facts before it.
M.M Kumar, J.:— The Union of India and its officers have filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 3.2.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition holding that the order dated 24.8.1995 (P-1) does not disclose any reason for termination of the services of the petitioner-respondent. The learned Single Judge has further found the order dated 24.4.1996 (P-9), passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal as non-speaking. The learned Single Judge has also observed that on 24.8.1994 when the petitioner-respondent was enlisted as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force as well as on 9.12.1994 when he filled the verification form, no case was pending against him as he had already been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una (Himachal Pradesh), vide judgment dated 2.5.1994, which has been upheld up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is of the view that the services of the petitioner-respondent could not have been terminated on the ground of non-disclosure of information/suppression of facts in the Verification Roll.
2. The facts are not in dispute. On 24.8.1994, the petitioner-respondent was enlisted as Constable (GD) in the C.R.P.F, Pinjore. On 27.8.1994 he reported for duty. On 9.12.1994, the petitioner-respondent filled his ‘Verification Roll’, which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Una (H.P) for verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner-respondents and to determine his suitability for Government service, vide letter dated 31.1.1995 On 23.5.1995, the Deputy Commissioner, Una (H.P) intimated that a case FIR No. 356, dated 28.10.1992, under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC, Police Station Una, was registered against the petitioner-respondent and pending before the Court. On the basis of the said report, his services were terminated by the Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF, Pinjore, vide order dated 24.8.1995 (P-1). Against the order dated 24.8.1995, the petitioner-respondent preferred an appeal (P-3). In para (iii) of the appeal while admitting the factum of pendency of a criminal case against him, it was pointed out by him that the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Una, acquitted him in the said case by his judgment dated 2.5.1994 (P-2). He further pleaded that on the date of his enlistment in the C.R.P.F no police/court case was pending against him. Thus, he denied that he has concealed anything in the verification and character antecedents roll. On 24.4.1996, the DIGP, CRPF, Chandigarh, passed an order and found that the termination order was in order (P-9). Challenging the aforementioned orders dated 24.8.1995 (P-1) and 24.4.1996 (P-9) the petitioner-respondent approached this Court by filing CWP No. 9550 of 1996, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 3.2.2010
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we are of the considered view that there is merit in the instant appeal and the same deserves to succeed. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has produced photocopy of the ‘Verification Roll’, which was filled by the petitioner-respondent on 9.12.1994, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. A perusal of the ‘Verification Roll’, which is both in English and Hindi language, contains the following ‘Warning’ in the beginning:
1. The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.
3. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in Verification Roll comes to notice at and time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.”
4. Against Column No. 12 (a) of the ‘Verification Roll’, an incumbent was required to state in clear terms about the fact whether he/she was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution. Column 12(b) further requires furnishing of information about pendency of case in any court of law, university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up the ‘Verification Roll’. If answer to (a) or (b) is given in ‘Yes’ then full details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. was required to be given at the time of filling the form. For ready reference Column 12 of the ‘Verification Roll’ is reproduced in extenso as under:
“12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution?
(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is ‘Yes’ then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court University/education authority at the time of filling in this form.”
5. It is evident from the perusal of the ‘Verification Roll’ that the petitioner-respondent has not mentioned anything against Column 12 despite the fact that he was fully aware that case FIR No. 356/92, dated 28.10.1992, under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC was registered against him in Police Station Una, wherein he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Una, vide judgment dated 2.5.1994 (P-2). Thus, the petitioner-respondent was required to furnish this vital information in the ‘Verification Roll’ on 9.12.1994, which he failed.
6. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge because the same does not stand the scrutiny of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. In the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 3 reads thus:
“3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 6.9.1995 in OA No. 1756 of 1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated 18.12.1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.”
7. The aforesaid view has also been approved later on by a three-Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, (2006) 1 SCC 779. In the present case also the petitioner-respondent Avtar Singh was facing prosecution in case FIR No. 356/92, under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Una and he was acquitted vide order dated 2.5.1994 (P-2). In view of the apparent settled legal position by the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we find no sustainable ground to approve the view taken by the learned Single Judge because the same is not based on rational analysis and deserves to be set aside.
8. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 3.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the orders dated 24.8.1995 (P-1) and 24.4.1996 (P-9) are upheld.
Alert