Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Pratap Singh, J.@mdashRejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. This petition is directed against a termination order dated 6th of August 2007 by which the petitioner''s selection for temporary services has been cancelled on the ground of filing a false declaration with regard to involvement in a criminal case.

4. The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the civil police on temporary basis on 17.11.2006 on the strength of a declaration form submitted by him that no criminal case was ever registered against him nor he was convicted by any court of law. The State Government finding that large scale irregularities had been committed in the recruitment drive where the petitioner was also selected, directed all the appointing authorities through the Director General of Police to verify the certificates and declarations given by the recruits. In pursuance thereof, a report was sought from the Police Station Bakewar District Etawah in regard to declaration of the petitioner as to whether he was involved in any criminal case or convicted. It was found that the petitioner in fact was involved in a Case Crime No. 49 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 308, 325, 504, 506 IPC and thus finding that he had submitted a false declaration, the respondent, relying upon an undertaking given by the petitioner in his declaration that if anything is found to be incorrect, his selection would be liable to be cancelled, the impugned order was passed cancelling his selection.

5. It is admitted to the petitioner that in fact he was involved in the aforesaid case but he was acquitted in March 2004 and therefore the declaration submitted by him was incorrect and false.

6. It is firstly urged that without holding a domestic enquiry, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated and in support thereof he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P. and Anr. 2009 SCCL.Com 3241.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had given an affidavit that he was never involved in any criminal case and therefore, the declaration becomes incorrect and false. Admittedly, the petitioner was only a temporary recruit who had not even been appointed. The decision in the case of Kamal Narayan Misra (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case for the reason that in that case the incumbent had worked for about 14 years and 7 years after he gave the declaration, his services were terminated without notice, even though he was a confirmed employee. The Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, has held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish declaration is only to assess his character and antecedents required for service and suppression of material information and making a false statement had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the incumbent and in such circumstances the employer would be justified in terminating his services. It went on to hold that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal would be relevant without considering whether the incumbent who suppressed a material fact of being involved in a criminal case is fit to be continued in service and such incumbent can be terminated without enquiry. Thus, the argument cannot be accepted.

8. It is then urged that the petitioner even though he was a temporary servant, he should have at least been given a show cause to explain his position that the case was totally false and the petitioner was honorably acquitted and this was also the requirement of Para 541 of the Regulations framed under the Police Act. In support thereof, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Parveen Tyagi v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 54350 of 2007 decided on 21.8.2009. The learned Single Judge in this case has held, after considering various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that "...It is true that for the purpose of discharging a constable in accordance with para 541 of the Regulations no regular departmental inquiry is contemplated but the minimal requirement of para 541 is that the incumbent must be supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge and he should be given an opportunity to submit his representation before taking any final decision."

9. The aforesaid decision covers the case of the petitioner to the extent quoted above as no reasonable opportunity of even a show cause was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

10. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 6th of August 2007 is hereby quashed.

11. However, the reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject to further orders which will now be passed by the appointing authority after considering the reply of the petitioner and the final decision may be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.

12. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.