Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 15
[Citation : 2012(3) RLW 2458 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Sunil Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (Mishra, CJ.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, J.
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I, J.
Sunil Kumar
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) Nos. 2593 & 2594 of 2011, decided on 03.01.2012
S.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, for Appellants;
S.S. Raghav, for Respondents
Headnote:Service Matter — Not mentioning of criminal proceeds pending at the time of filing of application in the respective columns — Suppression of information deliberately — Requirement of attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents — Held — If person indulges in suppressi veri and suggestio falsithen he does not deserve public employment — Order passed by Single Bench upheld.
Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13 & 21)
lsok ekeys & vkosnu i= ds lacaf/kr dkWye dks Hkjrs le; yfEcr QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh dk mYys[k ugha djuk & tkucw>dj lwpuk dk neu djuk & izk:i ds rLnhd dh okaNuh;rk pfj= ,oa iwoZ pfj= ds lR;kiu ds iz;kstukFkZ Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;fn dksbZ O;fDr lR; dk xksiu ,oa vlR; dk lq>ko nsrk gS rks og yksd fu;kstu gsrq ;ksX; ugha gksrk & ,dyihB }kjk ikfjr vkns'k cgky j[kkA ¼in la[;k 13 o 21½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
2. Shri S.S. Raghav accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
3. For the reasons stated in the application filed u/s.5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stands disposed of.
4. Heard on the question of admission.
5. The intra-court appeals have been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Single Bench in CWP-12527/11 and 12529/11 filed by appellants-Sunil Kumar and Rajveer respectively. The appellants preferred writ petitions aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Bhilai, Ministry of Home on the ground of suppression of material information as to involvement in criminal case in the application form which was filled staking claim against the post of Constable/Driver.
6. In the case of appellant Sunil Kumar, he suppressed the factum of involvement in criminal case No.203/02 which was registered under Secs. 147, 149, 342, 365, 379, 377, 323 IPC at Police Station Singhana in which he was chargesheeted. He was acquitted for commission of offence under Sections 147, 365/149 IPC for lack of sufficient evidence. However, he entered into compromise for commission of offence under Secs. 323, 342, 379 IPC and was thus acquitted vide judgment dated 23.12.2010. However, he has suppressed the factum of pendency of criminal case while submitting application form on 16.7.2010. He also suppressed the involvement in criminal case while submitting form for medical test on 21.2.2011. While verifying his character, it was found that he was involved in aforesaid criminal case which he has suppressed. Thus, his appointment as Constable/Driver has been cancelled.
7. In the case of appellant Rajveer, he had filled the application form on 15.7.2010. He again filled the form on 23.2.2011 for the purpose of medical examination. In both the forms, he has suppressed his involvement in the criminal case No.85/10 registered under Sections 323, 341/34 IPC at Police Station Pilani. In the said criminal case, he was convicted and released on probation by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilani vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. On account of suppression of this material fact in the application form, his appointment was also cancelled.
8. The orders of cancellation of appointment were questioned before the Single Bench by filing the writ petitions. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ petitions vide common order dated 16.9.2011. Hence, the appellants are before us.
9. Shri S.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that it was a case where suppression could not be said to be material one. Ultimately, appellant Sunil Kumar has been acquitted for commission of offence under Secs. 147, 365/149 IPC for lack of sufficient evidence and was acquitted for commission of offence under Sections 323, 342, 379 IPC on the basis of compromise. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that appellant Rajveer has been convicted u/s. 323, 341/34 IPC and released on probation. Thus, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 STPL(Web) 713 SC, he has submitted that cancellation of appointment was illegal. He has also pressed into service the decisions of the Apex Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair vs. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre & Ors., 1988 (Supp) SCC 795, Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222 and Single Bench decision of this court in Yogendra Kumar Sharma vs. State & Ors., 2010(3) WLC (Raj.) 675.
10. The facts of the case of appellant Rajveer indicate that when he filled the application form, criminal case was pending against him. He filled the form twice, once at the time of filling application for recruitment and another when he filled the fo
