Deliberate suppression of material information and making a false statement on the attestation form can justify the penalty of removal from service.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

( 1 ) RULE DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 17. 11. 2003 of the central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) in O. A. No. 663/2003 whereby the OA of the petitioner was dismissed.

( 3 ) PETITIONER was appointed as Civilian Vehicle Mechanic (MV) in 505 Army Base Workshop on 21. 2. 2000 after qualifying selection. He was involved in a case FIR No. 348/1998 registered under Section 341/323/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, delhi. At the time of filing of the Attestation Form for character and police verification, petitioner suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him despite knowledge of the same. On verification the respondents were informed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi that the petitioner was involved in case FIR No. 348 dated 8. 7. 1998 under Section 323/341/34 IPC, PS Najafgarh, Delhi pending adjudication. This resulted into issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. After he replied to the same, he was charge-sheeted for departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)Rules,1965 for concealing material information regarding involvement in criminal case at the time of recruitment. After completion of enquiry, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Enquiry Officer taking a plea that he, on account of improper knowledge of English language, was not able to understand the correct import of Column No. 13 of the Attestation Form. The said representation was rejected. Appeal and revision against the said order was also dismissed and petitioner was imposed with major penalty of removal from service. This resulted into filing of the OA by the petitioner, which was dismissed on 17. 11. 2003. The said order of the CAT has been assailed before us.

( 4 ) THE short question involved in the present writ is: Whether the penalty of removal from service is justified and proportionate to the offence of suppression of the fact of pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner which culminated into acquittal on compromise on 20. 2. 2003"

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and he was immediately released on bail. At the time of appointment the petitioner filled in the attestation Form but in column No. 13 (b) he ticked mark as `no' to the question `have you ever been prosecuted"'; after confirming from his relative and friend who had the knowledge of English and the petitioner was told the meaning of `prosecuted' as `conviction' or `detention in police custody or judicial custody'. It was under this bonafide belief that the petitioner wrote `no' in front of column No. 13 (b) with no malafide intention to hide his involvement in criminal case. It was further submitted that though the petitioner is matriculate but is not well versed with English language and the Attestation form was filled in on the basis of Hindi version given by his friend. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been acquitted from the said criminal case by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 20. 2. 2003 on parties having entered into a compromise. After his acquittal respondent should have reinstated the petitioner in service as no stigma was cast upon him of the criminal proceedings pending against him at the time of his appointment as Civilian Vehicle Mechanic (MV), with a lesser punishment as punishment of removal from service is very harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

( 6 ) ALL these arguments have been controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that not only the petitioner had concealed the material information of his involvement in criminal case in the Attestation from, but he also suppressed information in his Declaration where he had verified the contents of Attestation Form