IMPORTANT POINT
Suppression of material information in the attestation form justifies termination under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and amounts to moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in SBCWP No.15565/2012 passed by learned Single Judge, wherein, the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service. However, it has been ordered that he shall not be entitled for actual salary during interregnum period and the same shall be fixed notionally.

2. The petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Constable/Driver in CISF on 25.02.2011; on 05.03.2011, he submitted his attestation form and on 27.03.2011, the petitioner was appointed as Constable/Driver on temporary basis.

3. The attestation form submitted by the petitioner, at the time of appointment, was sent to District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu for character and antecedents verification.

4. The verification report was submitted by the District Magistrate in which it was indicated that as per the records of Khetri Police Station, a police case No.162/2003 was registered against the petitioner under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and charge-sheet was submitted to the Court of ACJM, Khetri on 02.10.2003. Later on, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri vide order dated 13.08.2009.

5. Based on the said antecedent report, by order dated 27.02.2012 pursuant to the provisions Rule 26 (4) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (‘Rules of 2001’), services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. receipt of the order. It was also indicated that he would be entitled for one month’s pay plus allowances in lieu of one month’s notice.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed departmental appeal. The appellate authority by its order dated 11.06.2012 dismissed the appeal.

7. Feeling aggrieved of the orders terminating the services and rejecting the appeal, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

8. Learned Single Judge by its order impugned came to the conclusion that termination order was passed simply on the ground of concealment, however, as the petitioner had already been acquitted prior to his selection referring to judgment in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2016 (8) SCC 471 and another Single Bench judgment of this Court came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that concealment was material for the purpose of discontinuing the petitioner and consequently, passed the order impugned and the writ petition was allowed.

9. Learned ASG made vehement submissions that from the facts of the case, it is apparent that in the attestation form, the petitioner inter-alia was required to disclose whether he has ever been prosecuted and other criminal antecedent related questions to which he clearly indicated ‘No’. The attestation form inter-alia clearly want the candidates that furnishing of the false information or suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification and would render the candidate unfit for employment.

10. Further, it was also indicated that if there is any suppression of any factual information, which comes to the notice at any time during the service of person, his services would be liable to be terminated.

11. The petitioner despite having been prosecuted for offence under Section 498A, 406 IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act gave wrong information/suppressed the said aspect and verified in the attestation form that the information was correct and complete to best of his knowledge.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner was prosecuted for criminal offence and he suppressed the said information. It was submitted that mere acquittal before filling up the application form by itself cannot wash away the fact that the petitioner had suppressed material facts pertaining to his criminal antecedents.

13. It was emphasized that irrespective of acquittal, for coming to a conclusion whether the petitioner was fit to be appointed on the post of a Constable, the said aspect could be ta