A candidate's false declaration regarding criminal antecedents during verification can justify removal from service without a preceding inquiry when the candidate is in the selection process.

Headnote:(A) Indo-Tibetan Border Police Act, 1992 - Section 11 - Appointment and character verification of Constable Pioneer - Petitioner declared false information on application regarding FIR - Acquitted of charges but removed due to concealment - Court held that no inquiry needed as petitioner was not appointed; hence, removal valid. (Paras 9, 13, 15)

(B) Service Law - Candidate's integrity essential for employment in state security forces - Employing authority must ascertain character accurately. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Constable Pioneer, filled out a verification form and falsely denied having any pending FIR against him, which eventually came to light. He argued a clerical error but faced removal from service following disciplinary action and the rejection of his review petition regarding this removal.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner was removed during the character verification stage and did not qualify for an inquiry as he had not been officially appointed. His prior acquittal did not mitigate the impact of his false declaration on his employment eligibility.

Issues: The court primarily discussed whether the removal of the petitioner from service due to the concealment of the FIR was justified and the necessity of an inquiry prior to removal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the integrity of candidates is paramount for roles affecting state security, affirming that a candidate must disclose any criminal proceedings, with a false declaration warranting removal without the need for a formal inquiry.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's employment issues due to fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claim of clerical error and arguments of acquittal. (Para 4 , 5 , 10)
3. grounds for reviewing termination discussed. (Para 6 , 9 , 11)
4. notification and opposition by respondents. (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
5. court's consideration of petitioner’s arguments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. final dismissal of petition. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Constable Pioneer (Recruit) in 36 Battalion of Indo Tibetan Border Police (`ITBP') after completion of due recruitment process. According to petitioner, during the selection process he was required to fill Column No. 12 (A) & (B) & 13 of attestation form in the Verification Roll which seeks composite information regarding arrest, prosecution and detention of the candidate and he had filled "No" in the said columns. When the office of 36 Battalion sent his Verification Roll to District Magistrate, Bharatpur for character verification, it transpired that an FIR No. 56/2013 was registered against him wherein charge sheet No. 101 dated 14.08.2013 under Sections 323/325/341/147 IPC was filed and the case was pending for adjudication.

2. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2016 seeking reasons for suppression/concealment of pendency of an FIR against him. In reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the petitioner pleaded to have made a clerical mistake, due to confusion and also stated that mere pendency of an FIR or criminal case against him, be not construed as if he was convicted. Against the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2016, the petitioner claims to have preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur [W.P.(C) 7872/2016], wherein vide order dated 20.06.2016 the Court directed to keep the impugned Show Cause Notice in abeyance till the next date. However, on the next date, respondent-ITBP informed the Court that petitioner had already been removed from service vide order dated 17.06.2016.

3. Against the order dated 17.06.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the competent authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2016.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that when petitioner was only aged 19 years, his father had won Sarpanch election whereas the complainant of FIR in question had lost and he got the FIR registered against the petitioner along with 10 other persons. Since the offences were bailable, petitioner was never arrested or taken into custody. However, due to inadvertence, the petitioner has written `No' in the columns of Verification Roll. Learned petitioner's counsel has pointed out that the learned ACMM after dealing with the facts of the said case, has held that the evidence placed on record is unreliable and the offences against the accused persons were not proved. Thereby, petitioner along with other accused, have been acquitted of the offences charged with giving benefit of doubt.

5. Learned counsel next submits that subsequent to acquittal of petitioner, he preferred a representation dated 08.08.2022 before the competent authority for review of order dated 16.11.2016. However, the respondents vide order dated 28.10.2022 rejected the said representation.

6. Aggrieved against the order dated 28.10.2022, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing thereof as well as setting aside of order dated 17.06.2016.

7. Notice issued.

8. Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, accepts notice and opposed the present petition on delay and latches and merits as well.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022, the review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondents by referring to the guidelines of MHA dated 01.02.2012. Learned counsel submitted that as per Section 11 of the ITBP Act, 1992, penalty of removal from s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document