The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2017 by which Superintendent of Police, Dhar has terminated his
service on the issue of concealing about registration of criminal case against him in the Column 12 of the application form (in respect of cadre
verification).
Facts of the case in short are as under:
The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community (Bhilala) having caste certificate as well as domicile certificate. The Professional
Examination Board conducted the examination in the year 2016 for selection on the post of Assistant Sub-Inpsector (Computer) of the Head
Constable (Computer)/Police Constable in the Police Department. The petitioner having requisite qualification submitted the form through portal
online on 16.04.2016. The Professional Examination Board issued an Admit Card for participation in examination with Roll No.20979576. The
petitioner participated in the selection process and the final result was declared whereby he was selected on the post of Constable (GD).Â
Thereafter, respondents issued a posting order to him. The petitioner submitted a attestation form before the Superintendent of Police for verification
of his antecedents & character.
The Superintendent of Police issued an appointment order dated 12.03.2017 and he was sent to pursue basic training for the post of constable at
Police Training School, Sagar. During training the respondent has issued an order of termination dated 18.05.2017 and thereafter, the order dated
22.05.2017 he has been relieved from the Training Shcool, hence present petition before this Court.
The petitioner has assailed the order of termination on the ground that he was prosecuted in a criminal registered in Crime No.32/2010 under Sections
341, 324, 326, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code but vide judgement dated 08.03.2011 but he had been acquitted by Sessions Judge, Barwani. He
was made accused alongwith his father and brother. By the aforesaid judgement, his father had been convicted but he and his brother were
honourably acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against them beyond doubt. The case of the petitioner falls under the Clause
38.4.3 of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in case of Avtar SinghVs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and before passing the
impugned order, the said judgement was not considered by the respondents, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be
remitted back to the respondent to consider afresh.
The respondents filed the return by submitting that the petitioner had concealed about registration of criminal cases against him in Column No.12 of
the character verification form, therefore, he suppressed the fact of registration of criminal case against him. He has not approached bona-fidely
before this Court and he is not entitled for any relief. The Apex Court in various cases has held that the person having criminal antecedents will not
be fit for Police Service and declined the appointment.
Undisputedly, the petitioner was prosecuted alongwith his father and brother for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and vide judgement dated 08.03.2011, the learned Sessions Judge has categorically held that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against him, therefore, the petitioner was not released on a benefit of doubt or the witnesses have been turned hostile. The only mistake he
committed is that he did not disclose about this prosecution in the Column No.12 of the character verification form.
The respondent has placed reliance over the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 4
SCC 17 in which the apex Court has explained the term “Moral Turpitudeâ€. The respondent has also placed reliance over the judgement
passed by the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 in which the apex Court has
held that the person having criminal antecedent will not be fit in the Police Service. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Parvez
Khan, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591 the Apex Court has declined the compassionate appointment for the Police Service on the ground of criminal
antecedent of a candidate who was acquitted for want of evidence or was discharged for the offence of compounding. All these aforesaid cases
were again considered by the Apex Court in case of Avtar SinghVs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, in detail and in which it is held that
still the employer can exercise its discretion in respect of appointment of termination of a candidate/employee who has been convicted/acquitted or
arrested, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into the service. Relevant portion reads as follows:
“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.
(emphasis in original)â€
The case of the petitioner falls under the Clause
38.4.3. In case of Vikram Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 308, the Apex Court in similar facts and circumstances has
remitted back the case to the authority to reconsider the representation in light of the judgement passed in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to take a fresh decision in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
case of Avtar Singh (supra).
 Petition is disposed of.
