SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dinesh vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2019

1
W.P. No.5409/2009

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(SB : SHEEL NAGU J.)
W.P. No.5409/2009
Dinesh
Vs.
Union of India Others
__
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar, Advocate for the respondents.
_

O R D E R

(19/2/19)

The present petition under Article 226 assails the order dated

20-8-2008 (Annexure P-1) by which the services of petitioner on

the post of Constable (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF

of Brevity) have been dispensed with after giving one month’s

notice.

2. Admittedly, the order impugned does not assign any reason

and therefore, order is simplicitor in nature, discharging the services

of a probationer without casting any stigma.

3. The State filed a return revealing the reason of petitioner

having concealed registration of criminal offence and pendency of

prosecution against him which later culminated into judgment of
2
W.P. No.5409/2009

acquittal by compounding by order dated 21.02.2005.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on probation by

order dated 06.05.2006 as Constable (GD) in CRPF and after his

appointment, which was made subject to character verification of

criminal antecedents, it was revealed that offences were registered

against him punishable u/Ss. 323, 504 of IPC read with Sec.34 of

IPC in the year 2004, which gave rise to the criminal prosecution

before the trial Court where petitioner was acquitted by

compounding of offence by order dated 21-02-05.

5. The Appointing Authority found that petitioner in his

character verification form suppressed the information about

registration of offence and pendency of criminal prosecution against

him by not providing the necessary details in Column No.12 of

aforesaid prosecution. As such it is evident from the return that the

real reason behind discharging of services was suppression of the

fact of petitioner having been prosecuted.

6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of three

Judge Bench in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016)

8 SCC 471, to contend that there is nothing on record to disclose as

to whether mind was applied by the Competent Authority as regards

suitability of petitioner for retention in service, and whether the
3
W.P. No.5409/2009

suppression is good enough to disqualify further continuance in

service.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying

upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of

M.P. and Ors. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar in SLP (C)

No.17404/2016 passed on 26.11.2018, whereby two Judge Bench

decision of Apex Court, while dealing with earlier decision on the

point including the case of Avtar Singh held thus:-

14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was
principally concerned with the question as to non-
disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was
observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a
truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made,
the employer would still have a right to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be
compelled to appoint such candidate.

15. In the present case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending
against him. Compromise was entered into only after
an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the
issue of compounding of offences and the effect of
acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law
declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra),
specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely
concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made
by a candidate, the employer would be well within his
4
W.P. No.5409/2009

rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of
the candidate. While so considering, the employer can
certainly take into account the job profile for which the
selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges
levelled against the candidate and whether the
acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or
was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a
result of composition.

16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed
Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision
cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para
5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only
allegation against the appellant therein was that he
was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was
following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime
accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was
travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all
the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not
support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed
Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and
cannot in any way be said to have departed from the
line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar
Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep
Kumar (supra).

17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing
on record to suggest that the decision taken by the
concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of
5
W.P. No.5409/2009

the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides
or suffered on any other count. The decision on the
question of suitability of the respondent, in our
considered view, was absolutely correct and did not
call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this
appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single
Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss
Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the
respondent. No costs.

18. Before we part, we must record our appreciation
for the efforts put in by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned
Amicus Curiae and the assistance rendered by him.

8. This Court also had an occasion to decide similar issue

holding that suppression of criminal prosecution in character

antecedents form qua uniformed services, where rectitude and

discipline is paramount, can be a good ground for the Competent

Authority to either reject the candidature or to discontinue the

services, which are not yet confirmed. The relevant extract of the

said case is as under:-

13. The most relevant and crucial factor which
dissuades this court from exercising writ jurisdiction in
favour of the petitioner is the suppression of material
fact about criminal antecedent in the verification form
as held supra. The act of suppression in the verification
form reflects adversely on the moral fiber and character
of the candidate thereby enabling the employer to oust
6
W.P. No.5409/2009

the petitioner from competition and choose another
eligible candidate, though less meritorious, but of clean
image and character for induction into the police force.

9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that

looking to the nature of service, job requirement on the post of

Constable and it’s job profile, the act of suppression gives rise to

necessary inference that the candidate has a tendency to mislead for

his own advantage thereby causing dent in his moral fiber rendering

him susceptible to fear and favour thereby making him unfit for

disciplined service.

10. Accordingly, this Court declines interference in the matter

and dismisses the present petition.

No cost.

(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
19/2/19
Ashish*

ASHISH
CHOURASIYA
2019.02.19
18:58:27
+05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation