ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dilip Gupta, J.
Surendra Singh Yadav son of Paltu Yadav
Versus
Union of India
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 39526 of 1998
Decided On : 02 March 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 39526 Of 1998
SERVICE TERMINATION - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE - SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY - Held, the petitioner had concealed material information in the Verification Roll. It was this information which would have enabled the employer to judge his character and antecedents. The authorities made the enquiries to find out the correct position. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that a sympathetic view should be taken.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was selected on temporary basis in the Central Reserve Police Force as a constable (Recruit) by means of the letter dated April, 1998. While submitting the application form for seeking the aforesaid appointment, the petitioner filled up the Verification Roll as was required under Rule 14 (b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules). The verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner was made through the district Magistrate, Ghazipur as required under Rule 14 (a) of the CRPF Rules. The District magistrate by his letter dated 20th August, 1998 forwarded the report of the Superintendent of police, Ghazipur which mentioned that Criminal Case No. 458 of 1997 under Sections 323/325/504 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the petitioner in the Court of additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Upon receipt of the aforesaid information the order dated 31st October, 1998 was issued by the Competent Authority under the provisions of rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules read with Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules by which the temporary services of the petitioner were terminated forthwith.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner had clearly suppressed information about the pendency of the criminal case which he was required to disclose in the Verification Roll. The petitioner had also signed the Verification Roll clearly certifying that the information furnished by him was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was justified in view of the suppression of information in the Verification Roll?
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of indicating the information sought for in the Verification Roll is for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee and a candidate who has suppressed material information and/or has given false information cannot claim a right to continue in service. The information required is with respect to the date of filling up of the Verification Roll and subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case or acquittal by a Criminal Court is not material and nor is it material that the criminal case related to an offence which was not of a serious nature. It is also not open to an employee to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not for it is for the employer to judge the requirement of such information.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is, accordingly dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31st October, 1998 by which the services of the petitioner who had been selected as a constable (Recruit) on temporary basis in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the crpf) have been terminated under the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of The Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ccs (Temporary) Rules ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner was selected on temporary basis in the Central Reserve Police Force as a constable (Recruit) by means of the letter dated April, 1998. While submitting the application form for seeking the aforesaid appointment, the petitioner filled up the Verification Roll as was required under Rule 14 (b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules ). The relevant portions of the Verification Roll filled up by the petitioner are quoted below: warning: the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification roll will be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the government. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. , subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the information should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to which the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. 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/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? if answer to (a) or (b) is yes then give details of prosecution, 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. Please also see the warning at the top of this Verification Roll. I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under Government. . . . Signature of the Candidate
( 3 ) THE verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner was made through the district Magistrate, Ghazipur as required under Rule 14 (a) of the CRPF Rules. The District magistrate by his letter dated 20th August, 1998 forwarded the report of the Superintendent of police, Ghazipur which mentioned that Criminal Case No. 458 of 1997 under Sections 323/325/504 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the petitioner in the Court of additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Upon receipt of the aforesaid information the order dated 31st October, 1998 was issued by the Competent Authority under the provisions of rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules read with Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules by which the temporary services of the petitioner were terminated forthwith. It is this order that has been impugned in the present petition.
( 4 ) I have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. C. Sinha, learned assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.
( 5 ) SRI B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was ultima
A.P.Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors.
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra
Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N.
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
State of A.P. v. T.Suryachandra Rao
Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal and Ors.
Madhya Pradesh Hast Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain and Anr.
Sams her Singh v. State of Punjab
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences
K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Ors.
N.K.Prasad v. Government of India and Ors.
Karnataka SRTC v. S.G.Kotturappa
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Dharam Bir
Ramakrishna Kamat and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Referred to : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav
Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D.Mandivikar and Ors.
Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley
Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC and ST and Ors.
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitra Devi and Ors.
State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla
Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies v. Prakash Chandra Saxena
State of Punjab v. P.S. Cheema
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh
Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, JandK Bank Ltd.
Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta
Managing Director ECU, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee
Ten Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
Kishorilal Charmakar and Anr. v. District Education Officer and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.