Mahendra Solanki vs Commissioner Of Police

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Mahendra Solanki - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Of Police & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2219 of 2023
Decided On : 10-03-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Mr. Rajul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma, Mr. Somdev Tiwari and Mr. Dev Karan Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD (Services) with Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates.

Headnote:
Suppression of Material Information - Employment Termination - Avtar Singh, Pawan Kumar - [Section 294/323/506/34 IPC, Standing Order No.398/2018 of Delhi Police] - The court discussed the suppression of material information by the petitioner regarding his involvement in a criminal case and the termination of his employment. The court referred to the legal principles established in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India. It emphasized that the employer has the discretion to consider all relevant facts and circumstances before terminating the services of an employee for suppression of material information. The court also highlighted the need for a fair and reasonable inquiry by the employer and the importance of considering the nature of the offence and the suitability of the candidate for the post.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the termination of his employment due to suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. He had been acquitted in the case before filling the attestation form.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination was not justified as the petitioner's involvement in a trivial criminal case, for which he had been acquitted, did not automatically render him unfit for employment. The court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable inquiry by the employer and the consideration of the nature of the offence and the suitability of the candidate for the post.
Issues: The issues included whether the law declared in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar or in other cases was binding and whether the O.A. deserved to be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer has the discretion to consider all relevant facts and circumstances before terminating the services of an employee for suppression of material information. The court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable inquiry by the employer and the consideration of the nature of the offence and the suitability of the candidate for the post.
Final Decision: The court set aside the termination of the petitioner's employment and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all notional benefits including pay, seniority, and other consequential benefits.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The petitioner was terminated from employment due to suppression of involvement in a criminal case in his attestation form, despite having been acquitted prior to filling the form. The court emphasized that the employer has the discretion to consider all relevant facts and circumstances before terminating employment for suppression of material information, and that the process must be fair and reasonable (!) (!) .
The court found that the termination was not justified because the involvement in a trivial criminal case, for which the petitioner was acquitted, did not automatically disqualify him from employment. The employer should have conducted a fair inquiry considering the nature of the offence and the petitioner’s overall suitability (!) (!) .
The legal principles established in relevant guidelines and previous judgments highlight that suppression of material facts or false declarations regarding criminal involvement can be grounds for termination, but the standard of scrutiny depends on the nature of the offence, whether it involves moral turpitude, and the circumstances of each case (!) (!) .
The employer’s discretion allows for condoning lapses in cases involving minor or trivial offences, especially when the individual has been acquitted and the offence does not involve moral turpitude or serious misconduct. The decision to terminate should be based on an objective assessment of all relevant factors, including the nature of the offence and the applicant’s conduct (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that an acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment; the employer retains the right to assess the overall suitability and character of the individual, taking into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances, and whether suppression was material or deliberate (!) (!) .
The process of verification and inquiry must be fair, and the authority must avoid arbitrary or mechanical decisions. The decision to terminate should consider whether the suppression was material, whether the offence was trivial, and whether the individual’s overall conduct and background justify continued employment (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the exercise of discretion by the employer must be reasonable, objective, and based on all relevant facts and circumstances. The nature of the post, the seriousness of the offence, and the conduct of the individual are critical factors in such assessments (!) (!) .
The case underscores that even if an individual has made a truthful declaration regarding a criminal case, the employer may still consider the antecedents and suitability for the post. The decision must be made prudently, ensuring fairness and adherence to established guidelines (!) (!) .
Overall, the court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, emphasizing that the employer should have conducted a fair and balanced inquiry before arriving at the decision to terminate (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated February 02, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) dismissing the O.A. No.1872/2022 preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of termination order of the petitioner and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. In brief, Mahendra Solanki (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2020 and was provisionally selected subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. Petitioner was issued an offer of appointment on February 24, 2022 with directions to join basic training course commencing w.e.f. March 07, 2022 and he joined the training on March 15, 2022. On receiving verification report from S.P. Raisen (M.P.) vide letter dated March 28, 2022 it was revealed that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.103/2020 under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Umraoganj and had been acquitted by the concerned Court. The record of the petitioner was scrutinized by the respondents which revealed that in the attestation form filled by him on January 14, 2022, he had mentioned in Column No. 15 (1)(e)(f)(g)&(h) as under:

15(i)		Yes/No
	(e) Whether any F.I.R. was ever registered against you in any police Station?	No
	(f) Have you ever been prosecuted? i.e. has a charge sheet in a criminal case been filed against you in any court of law?	No
	(g) Is any criminal case/complaint case pending against you in any Court of Law at the time of filling up this attestation form?	No
	(h) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any Offence?	No

In view of the concealment made by the petitioner in column no.15(i)(e)(f) about his involvement in the said FIR, the respondents passed the impugned order dated July 07, 2022 terminating the services of the petitioner with a direction to leave the Academy on July 07, 2022 itself.

3. In the aforesaid background, the O.A. was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned order dated July 07, 2022 along with other consequential benefits.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended before the Tribunal that the FIR was the result of certain family disputes and the petitioner stood acquitted in the aforesaid FIR within a period of four weeks from the date of registration of the FIR even prior to filling up of the attestation form. It was also urged that the petitioner was not to benefit by concealing the fact of his involvement in the said FIR, while filling up the attestation form. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the nature of alleged offence, the respondents were required to consider the suitability of the petitioner for his continuation in service and should not have terminated the services in a mechanical manner on the sole ground of non-disclosure about his involvement in the said case in the attestation form. Reliance was further placed upon Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441.

5. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal that the petitioner concealed the involvement in criminal case from the respondents. Further, he had also given an undertaking on March 11, 2022 that he had not concealed in the application form as well in the attestation form and also declared that he had neither been involved in any criminal case nor arrested/prosecuted/convicted. It was urged that malafide intention is reflected in view of the concealment. It was also contended that the offer of appointment issued