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.