Back
2019 Supreme(J&K) 274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Gita Mittal, CJ. and Rashid Ali Dar, J.
Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. – Respondents
LPASW No.71/2018
Decided on 9.8.2019
For the Appellant(s):Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.A. Dar, Sr. AAG
Headnote:
Service Law – Selection – Cancellation – Involvement in criminal case and deliberately furnishing false information in attestation form – Employer thus has wide discretion to take action on or to condone an omission by an applicant to disclose a criminal case – Standards on which suitability of a person for appointment to a uniformed service ought to be evaluated are different from a person who would seek appointment to other services – Suppression of a material fact at stage of submission of application for scrutiny brings stringent consequences – Scrutiny by authorities of such conduct by a person seeking recruitment to a uniformed service has to be stricter – Police force is a uniformed and disciplined force which carries responsibility of maintaining law and order in society – By its very nature, a police official must inspire absolute confidence and be of unimpeachable character and integrity – It is Screening Committee which has to assess as to whether such candidate would have propensity to revert to similar activities in future if given appointment – Consideration by Screening Committee necessarily entails examination of nature and extent of involvement of person in crime and possibility of becoming a cause for worsening law and order situation rather than maintaining it – It is scrutiny of Screening Committee which must carry weight – Favourable outcome of criminal trial may not necessarily impact consideration of fitness of candidate for selection – Screening Committee has to undertake a holistic exercise, involving evaluation of conduct or character of candidate as well as his potential towards criminal activities, all of which are relevant considerations – Employer has right to consider antecedents of candidates for assessing their suitability – Severity of charges levelled against candidate is an important consideration – Writ Court cannot sit in appeal over decision of Screening Committee/selecting authority – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 39, 42, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 75, 76, 80, 104 and 105)
JUDGMENT :
Gita Mittal, J.
The appellant has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment dated 14th of May, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the SWP No. 1766/2017.
2. By way of the writ petition, the appellant had sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing an order No. 2580 of 2017 dated 31st July, 2017 whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service as a Constable with the Jammu & Kashmir Police with consequential benefits.
Factual Narration
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, to the extent necessary for the present adjudication, are briefly noted hereafter.
4. The appellant had successfully participated in the selection process conducted in 2008-09 for constables in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police. Towards the process for issuance of formal appointment orders, a board of officers/officials was constituted under communication dated 10thJuly, 2009 of the Police District Headquarter, Handwara to check the original testimonials and to conduct physical measurements of the selected candidates.
5. It is on record that, thereafter, the Director General of Police, CID, J&K, Jammu was approached by a letter dated 18th March, 2009 for CID verification into the character and antecedents of the candidates through the Supervisory officer of the concerned police station. Vide a letter dated 26th June, 2009, a report was received from the respective offices. So far as the appellant is concerned, the verification report forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DAR, Handwara, (Supervisory officer of Police Station, Kralgund)was to the effect that the verification stood conducted through the SHO, Police Station, Kralgund and that, as per its record, no case stood registered against the appellant.
6. A medical checkup of the candidates including the appellant was conducted at the Police Hospital, Srinagar. After completing all requisite formalities, an appointment letter dated 20th August, 2009 was issued to the selected candidates including the appellant who was placed at S. No. 13 of this communication as resident of Gundchobotra, Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara. The appellant thereafter was deputed to the Police Training School, Manigam for undergoing the nine months BRTC course.
7. It appears that the search slips of the ten newly recruited constables including the appellant were also submitted to the Director, Finger Print Bureau (CPPB) NCRB East 7-R.K.Puram New Delhi for record and reference. The Director, Finger Print Bureau, New Delhi responded by a letter dated 7th December, 2009 that, so far as the appellant was concerned, he stood involved in a case which was registered as FIR No. 52/2007 under Sections 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code and 06 of Forest Act, by the police Station, Kralgund.
The case arising out of this FIR was stated to be sub-judice before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara.
8. A view was taken that true facts have been suppressed by the police with ulterior motive to benefit the selected candidates. A preliminary inquiry was also ordered to be conducted by the SDPO, Handwara by a letter dated 17th December, 2009 to fix responsibility for concealing facts by the staff of Police Station, Kralgund.
9. Simultaneously, vide a letter dated 18th of December, 2009, the matter was taken up with the Deputy Inspector General of Police, NKR, Baramulla by the Police District Headquarter, Handwara, for cancellation of the selection of the appellant.
10. In this background, by a letter dated 2nd of February, 2010, the Principal, Police Training School, Manigam was requested to revert the appellant so as to enable him to face the disciplinary inquiry which stood ordered.
11. During the course of inquiry, the summary of allegations was served upon the appellant, statements were recorded and thereafter, a detailed charge sheet was served upon him. Findings were submitted with the recommendation that action under rules may be taken f
