Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S.Sandhawalia, Jagmohan Bansal, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ajit Singh - Respondent
LPA-775 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Termination - Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - The court discussed the termination of a government servant based on non-disclosure of criminal antecedents in the verification roll. The judgment referenced the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 and the Ministry of Home Affairs's policy dated 01.02.2012. The court highlighted the importance of disclosure of criminal antecedents and the consequences of withholding relevant information in the verification form.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was terminated for non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in the verification roll. The respondent was acquitted from all charges and filed a civil writ petition seeking reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's non-disclosure of the pending criminal case in the verification roll justified the termination under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The court also referred to a recent judgment in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and ors, 2022 SCC Online SC 1300, which upheld the termination of an employee for withholding relevant information in the verification form.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the respondent based on non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in the verification roll, compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, and the applicability of the Ministry of Home Affairs's policy dated 01.02.2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-disclosure of the pending criminal case in the verification roll justified the termination under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The court also emphasized the consequences of withholding relevant information in the verification form, as highlighted in the recent judgment in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and ors, 2022 SCC Online SC 1300.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal of the appellant-Union of India, upholding the termination of the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Jagmohan Bansal, J. - Through instant appeal under clause X of Letters Patent of this Court, the Appellant-Union of India is seeking reconsideration of judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.7688 of 2016 whereby learned Single Judge had set aside termination order dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-2) and 10.04.2019 (Annexure P-4) and directed appellants to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner in service with consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts emerging from record and which are necessary for the adjudication of present appeal are that the respondent was enlisted in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a Constable/Bugler in the year 2010 and he was deputed for training at Recruit Training Centre of CRPF at Neemuch. The respondent was allocated to Group Centre, CRPF, Jalandhar (Punjab) under 127 Battalion CRPF. The respondent in verification roll (CRPF 25) dated 04.05.2011 stated that he has never been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention by the Court of law for any offence. It is apt to mention here that in CRPF 25 there is a specific column i.e. serial No.12 wherein a candidate is required to disclose about his criminal antecedents. Column No. 12 along with reply of the respondent is reproduced as below :-
12. (a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/ Institutions ?
(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/ institution at the time of filing up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is 'Yes", then give details of prosecution, arrest, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form. The appellant from report dated 24.08.2011 of District Magistrate, Mehendergarh and report dated 06.02.2011 of Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh came across that a trial is pending against respondent and he was arrested and thereafter released on bail.
3. The appellant in terms of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for short 1965 Rules') under the signature of Commandant, issued to respondent a notice of termination dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-2). The respondent vide representation dated 16.03.2012 submitted his stand wherein he contended that he belongs to a very poor family and after long struggle and hard work has got the present employment which is very precious to him and a mean of resources for the basic needs of the family. He has falsely been implicated in FIR No. 142 dated 14.08.2010 under Sections 148/147/323/324/325/326/452/506 of IPC. The FIR was registered on the basis of false allegations and there is no evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and it was registered with malafide intention and just to involve him in a criminal case. No explanation whatsoever has been sought from him regarding the circumstances in which he has given declaration that there was no criminal case against him. The termination without granting opportunity of hearing is in violation of principles of natural justice. Rule 5 (1) of 1965 Rules for the ready reference reads as under :-
5. Termination of temporary service.
(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month.
Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of disclosure of criminal antecedents in the verification roll and the consequences of withholding relevant information, as per th....
Willful suppression of material information concerning criminal antecedents during recruitment for public employment, particularly in a disciplined force, constitutes a valid ground for termination, ....
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
Probationary employees may be terminated for violating appointment terms, including misrepresenting criminal history, without requiring formal procedural safeguards.
Suppression of material information in the attestation form justifies termination under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and amounts to moral turpitude.
Non-disclosure of a past minor criminal case does not automatically justify termination of employment; each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
