1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by orders dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P/1), 09.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) and 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/3), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service, appeal preferred against the removal and revision preferred against appeal, have been dismissed respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that in pursuance of advertisement issued, the petitioner after having successfully completed the recruitment process, got selected/appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘the CRPF) on 17.03.2011. After selection, the petitioner was required to submit Form CRPF-25 and the petitioner also filled-up the said form, however he did not fill the column 12(a) & (b) in respect of the character and antecedents. During character verification, office of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Police Superintendent, vide letter date 30.07.2011 informed the District Magistrate Raipur that Crime No.22/2010 under Section 147, 294, 506, 323 of IPC was registered against the petitioner and challan had been filed before the Court of JMFC. Further, the office of Collector and District Magistrate, vide letter date 19.09.2011 informed the Inspector General of Police, CRPC, Police Force, Bilaspur that no such crime/flaw was found in his character as long as the petitioner was in the district. Since the aforesaid reports were contrary to each other, the Commandant 199th Battalion/Appointing Authority (Respondent No.4) vide letter dated 15.02.2012 enquired about the correctness of the report from the Collector, Raipur and in reply, the Additional Collector, Raipur, vide letter dated 19.07.2012, informed the respondent No.4 that a crime number No.22/2010 for offence punishable under Section 147, 294, 506, 323 IPC was registered against the petitioner and he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with charge sheet and Departmental Enquiry was proposed against the petitioner on 23.08.2014. After completion of Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 03.03.2015 before the respondent No.4 and on the basis of which, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 31.01.2015 (Annexure P/1). The said order dated 31.01.2015 was subjected to challenge by way of mercy appeal before the respondent No.3, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure P/2). Further, the petitioner preferred revision, which was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/3). Hence, this petition by the petitioner seeking following relief(s) :-
“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of present case from the respondents.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned orders (Annexure P/1, P/2 & P/3).
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”
3. Mr. Shashwat Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the object of Government order regarding character of candidate for appointment under State Government is that the character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such so as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. Though the criminal case was registered against the petitioner but he was sentenced to pay fine only and not major punishment was awarded to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner bonafidely did not fulfill the column No.12 of verification roll, as such the impugned orders being arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, unreasonable and unauthorised hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the appointing authority respondent No.4 had not gone into the question as to whether the petitioner was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of Constable in which he was appointed and the appointing authority respondent No.4 has only held that the selection of the petitioner was illegal and irregular because he did not fulfill the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. Thus, it was submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate, harsh and excessive punishment & the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 3598 : (2016) 8 SCC 471 and decision dated 21.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4445/2008 [Vikas Kumar Soni Vs. State of C.G. & Ors.] (2019:CGHC:31284).
4. Mr. Kishanlal Sahu, learned counsel for respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that after appointment of the petitioner, he was required to furnish full information in Form CRPF-25. The petitioner filled-up the information and left column No.12 (a) and (b) of the said form blank. During the course of investigation, it came to fore that the petitioner was having criminal antecedent and Crime No.22/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 294, 506 and 323 of IPC was registered against him, wherein the trial Court while imposing fine of Rs.5,000/-, sentenced the petitioner till rising of the Court. The fact of criminal case was ascertained from the letters dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure R-vi) and 30.07.2011 (Annexure R-iv) of Additional District Magistrate and Deputy Inspector General of Police & Police, Raipur respectively. The deliberately suppression of the fact of his involvement in the said criminal case and not reflecting the same in prescribed Form leads to misconduct under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and as per G.O.I.’s decision No.2 below Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was afforded with full opportunity of hearing and proper proceeding was drawn & after conducting Preliminary Enquiry followed by Departmental Enquiry, the charge was proved against the petitioner and he was awarded punishment of removal from service. The petitioner availed all the remedies available to him, as such the impugned orders cannot be termed to be illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, the petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not disputed in the instant case that the petitioner was appointed on 17.03.2011 as Constable (General Duty) and had undergone basic training and after completion of basic training, he reported for duty at 199 Battalion, C.R.P.F. on 19.10.2012. It is also not disputed that Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and by impugned order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P/1), he was removed from service. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the removal order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 09.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) and the revision preferred against this order was also dismissed by order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P/3) and these three orders are under challenged in the instant petition.
7. This Court while dealing with the issue where criminal case was registered against the employee and non disclosure of the same in the prescribed form leads to removal from service, in the matter of Vikas Kumar Soni (supra) applying the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra), held in para 13, 13 and 14 as under :-
“13. Avtar Singh (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the matter of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra).
12. It is thus settled by the Supreme Court that assessment of suitability on the basis of verification of character and antecedent should be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects and further that thought a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. Having further observed that chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service, the conclusion were summarized by the Supreme Court in Para 30. Dealing specifically with specific case of suppression of acquittal in a criminal case, it is held in paragraph 30(4)(c) that if acquittal has 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.
14. It is thus apparent that even in case where the candidate has been acquitted from the offences involving moral turpitude or heinous/serious crime it is obligatory for the employer to consider all relevant facts available as to antecedent. The exercise of power to discharge the candidate is, therefore, not to be exercised mechanically only on the basis of a previous Circular of the State Government which was issued much prior to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra). The fact that the case appears to be involving dispute between two neighbouring families and both of them having lodged criminal case against each other, the whole genesis of the incident which led to the registration of crime has to be considered objectively as to whether it would affect the petitioner’s suitability for rendering services on the post of Constable (Driver).”
8. It is apparent from the Enquiry Report and the impugned orders that Disciplinary Authority did not consider the case of the petitioner in an objective manner in view of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra). It has been clearly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case of suppression of material information in the verification form, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. It should not be in mechanical manner. In trivial cases, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact by condoning the lapse. But in this case, perusal of the impugned orders clearly goes to show that all aspects have not be considered by the Disciplinary Authority while arriving at the conclusion of removal.
9. In view of above discussion, this Court deems it appropriate that the respondent authorities should reconsider the issue keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra).
10. Let the competent authority revisit the issue in an objective manner, keeping in view the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), within a period of four months from today. It is made clear, even if, the order is recalled the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages, however, he shall be entitled to notional seniority.
11. In view of the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.
