DAKSH KAKRAN v. DELHI POLICE

3

notice was issued to him on 18.08.2022 allowing him a period of 15 days to reply to the same.

2. The applicant vide his reply, which is undated, submitted that he has no knowledge of the abovementioned case nor did he have such knowledge at any point of time. He categorically mentioned in the reply that it is only through this show cause notice that he had gained the information of the so called FIR registered against him. He further mentioned that although the name of one Daksh Kakran is mentioned as a suspect at Sl.No. 4 of the FIR, neither the parentage nor the residential address of this Daksh Kakran has been mentioned. He categorically stated that he had never been involved in any such case nor did he possess any knowledge of the same. He also submitted in his reply that he was never summoned by any Court in the abovementioned case and also drew attention to the fact, which he submits, his parents had gathered, that the said case was also closed at FIR stage itself on account of lack of any evidence. Drawing attention to the order vide which closure of the FIR has been ordered, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, he draws attention to the fact that the said order records that the identity of the suspects named in the FIR has also not been established. He, therefore, prayed that the show cause notice be withdrawn as it was issued on the basis of incorrect, wrong and misleading information.

4

3. The competent authority of the respondents considered the reply furnished by the applicant and held it to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.09.2022, the services of the applicant were terminated with immediate effect invoking the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, holding him to be entitled only to a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowance for a period of one month. The applicant, aggrieved by the said order prays for the following relief(s) in the present Original Application :-

"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure A/1).

(b) Accord all consequential benefits.

(c) award costs of the proceedings; and

(d) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the only allegation against the applicant is concealment of information. He submits that the applicant could not have furnished an information, which was not in his knowledge. Accordingly, the applicant cannot be held guilty of such concealment. He further argues that once the applicant cannot be held guilty of concealment, the question of making an allegation of "deceit"

does not arise. He submits that the character verification report submitted by the concerned authorities of Uttar Pradesh Police dated 29.06.2022 also clearly mentioned that the final closure

5

report in the instant matter was filed on 18.11.2018. In the said report there is no indication whether the applicant was ever called for any questioning or whether any notice was issued to him. He reiterates that in the absence of any mention of parentage and residential address, it cannot be ascertained that the person named in the FIR is the present applicant. Further, while passing an order on the closure report, it has been clearly held that one of the reasons for closure of the FIR is failure of the investigating authorities to establish the identity of the suspects.

5. Learned counsel emphatically states that since the information, which is alleged to have been concealed, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, he cannot be made to suffer the penalty for the same.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant draws support from the judgment of the Hon"ble Apex Court passed in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India case specifically to para 38.11 to establish his case. The said para is reproduced as under :-

"38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

7. In the instant case, the factual matrix conclusively establishes that the fact of an FIR in which he was named was never in the knowledge of the applicant nor have the

6

respondents placed any document on record to prove the same the learned counsel concludes.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, points out that the character verification certificate with the counter reply, which is placed at Annexure R-1, mentions the residential address and parentage of the applicant and this fact has also been mentioned in the order terminating the services of the applicant. He submits that the issue is not whether the applicant was involved in the criminal case or not, the guilt of the applicant is concealment of vital and material information. The applicant was selected in a uniformed disciplined force and highest levels of probity and integrity are expected. He submits that the competent authority has rightfully held that concealment of vital information amounts to deceit and the respondents had no option except to terminate the services of the applicant as the condition governing the appointment categorically stated that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information would render the candidate unfit for employment. Drawing attention to the two reports of Uttar Pradesh Police, he also submits that there is an apparent contradiction in the said reports which further invites doubt with respect to the antecedents of the applicant.

9. We have heard the learned counsels at great length. With the mutual consent of the learned counsels, we have taken up the OA for final disposal on account of the peculiar

7

circumstances of both the case and also on account of the fact that each day"s delay in deciding the matter is likely to cause prejudice to the interest of both the parties.

10. It is not in doubt that the applicant was successful on his merit for selection for the post of Constable in Delhi Police, meaning thereby, that besides being meritorious, he fulfilled all the requisite eligibility qualifications for the said post. Accordingly, he was appointed as a Constable and found fit to undergo the requisite training. The only limited disqualification attributed to the applicant was with respect to the information he had furnished in the attestation form, specifically in column 15. We find that column 15 (i) has 16 sub columns and the respondents have held against the applicant the information furnished only with respect to one of these 16 sub columns wherein the following question has been asked :-

"Whether any FIR was ever registered against you in any Police Station;

The applicant has answered this question with „NO"."

11. However, it will be relevant to understand this sub- column against the other 15 sub-columns, all of them are related to any pending or previous criminal matters and asked question such as whether the applicant has ever been arrested or kept under detention or bound down or convicted etc. Since, the applicant has answered all the other questions also with a

8

categorical „No", there should, in the normal course, not be any doubt about the applicant"s credentials.

Now column no. 15 (ii) asked the details with respect to the 16 sub-columns of 15 (i) in the event of any answer being „Yes".

This not being the case, the applicant could have given no other answer than a „No" with which he has answered 15 (i). There is nothing on record to give even an iota of evidence that the applicant was ever arrested or even put to notice pursuant to the registration of the aforementioned FIR. So, we have no reason or material before us to believe that the applicant was within the knowledge of registration of the said FIR. Moreover, the character verification report which mentions the parentage and residential address of the applicant was itself put to certain questions by the respondents and vide communication dated 06.10.2022, they sought certain clarifications, precisely on six points from Senior Superintendent of Police, District Meerut. The said six questions asked are listed as under :-

"1. Whether Daksh Kakaran S/o Sh. Sanjeev R/o Village & Post Bana, PS Inchauli, Distt. Meerut (UP) is named in FIR otherwise?

2. Whether any Notice was issued to him by the I.O. of the case to join investigation of the above-said case or otherwise?

3. Whether he joins the Investigation of the case or otherwise?

9

4. During investigation of the case identity of accused Daksh Kakran S/o Sh. Sanjeev R/o Village & Post Bana, PS Inchauli, Distt. Meerut (UP) is established by the I.O. of the case or otherwise?

5. Whether he was challaned in the above-said criminal case or otherwise, if yes, copy of Charge sheet may be provided.

6. Complete copy of all Case Diaries (CDs) of the above-said criminal case."

12. There is a communication placed on record by the respondents which is a letter addressed by the In-charge Police Station, Lalkurti, Distt. Meerut to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut which gives answers to these six queries. We find that except for confirming the fact of the registration of the concerned FIR, the said communication states that no other information is available. In fact, this communication states that the suspect"s address is not known; the case diary is not available; it is not known if the applicant was ever involved in the investigation; it is not known, if the identity of the applicant was ever established; no challan was put pursuant to this FIR which stood closed; and finally since all the case diaries subsequent to the closure of the case have been filed in the appropriate criminal Court, it is not possible to throw any light on any of the facts.

13. In the light of the aforesaid background, we are of the firm view that by no stretch of imagination can it even be alleged that the applicant is guilty of any wilful concealment of

10

factual information or that he could be alleged to have committed any deceitful action. None of the documents or material on record even remotely hint at the allegation, which have been levelled against the applicant. Further, a close reading of the impugned order shows that while in as many as in eight paragraphs the entire background, facts and history has been narrated, the conclusion that he is guilty of concealment and deceit has been drawn in one short paragraph. There is no discussion as to what facts and circumstances and material has been relied upon while arriving at such a conclusion.

15. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 bearing no. 5818- 890/SIP/PC/DPA/W.Bad is quashed. The applicant shall be reinstated in service as a Constable and deputed for training forthwith. As a consequences of this order, the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay & allowances with effect from the date his services were terminated. The purport of this order is that the applicant shall be deemed to have been in continuous and un-interrupted service. The said directions shall be given effect to within ten days from the receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

(Tarun Shridhar) (R N Singh) Member (A) Member (J)

/anjali/