Importance of truthfully disclosing criminal involvement and the applicability of guidelines from the Avtar Singh case in cases of false information.

JUDGMENT :

ASHA MENON, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 7th December, 2018 issued by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), whereby his representation against the order of termination of his services with the CISF was rejected and the termination order itself dated 30th September, 2018, the petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following prayers :

“I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07-12-2018/02-04-2019 and termination order dated 30-09-2018 issued by respondent department.

II. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service with effect from his date of termination with all consequential benefits.”

2. The facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner had been appointed as Constable on 4th April, 2017 in CISF Unit FGUTPP Unchahar after completion of his training. Respondent No.4 terminated his services on the ground of furnishing false or incorrect information in the enrolment/attestation form. The form required disclosure of facts of having undergone any criminal prosecution and the petitioner had responded in the negative. However, on verification, he was found to have been involved in F.I.R. No.64/2011 dated 24th August, 2011 registered with Police Station Itkhori, District Chatra and the chargesheet No.62/2011 dated 8th September, 2011 under Sections 341/323/448/504 and 34 IPC had been submitted in the court. As this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner when he was filling his application form and also at the time of furnishing his undertaking dated 4th April, 2017 he was found unfit to continue in service.

3. The petitioner submitted his representation against this termination, dated 5th October, 2018, claiming that he was unaware of the fact that a court case was pending against him which prevented him from making his disclosure in his undertaking dated 4th April, 2017 and further claimed that he had been “acquitted” by the court on 27th July, 2017 and had been “released” under the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, he sought that he be given a chance to correct his mistake and be taken back in service.

4. However the representation and the explanation did not find favour with the respondents. The empowered Standing Screening Committee of CISF found the petitioner not suitable for appointment in CISF. His representation against the termination order was also rejected vide the impugned order as the Inspector General found that the Competent Authority had followed all guidelines in this regard.

5. We have gone through the record as well as the submissions of Sh. J.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and the judgments of this court in Mandeep Vs. Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India & others, W.P. (C) 3906/2016 decided on 5th July, 2017 (2017 SCC OnLine Del 9027) and in Rahul Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) 6870/2017 decided on 12th April, 2018 (2018 SCC OnLine Del 8433) to contend that the alleged offences were petty in nature. Moreover, the certificate issued by the local police station had certified the good character of the petitioner and that the respondents ought to overlook the non-disclosure in the attestation form, particularly since the petitioner had been granted Probation and subsequently, the Appellate Court had acquitted him as the parties had entered into a compromise. He has also submitted that without proper disciplinary proceedings including show cause notice and departmental inquiry, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated.

7. At first blush, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner do seem attractive that when the petitioner had b