Suppression of material facts in the attestation form amounts to moral turpitude, justifying termination of services, regardless of the gravity of the criminal offence or the subsequent acquittal.

Ravi Shankar Jha, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 9-3-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P No. 7927/2011, whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the order of his termination dated 2-9-2011 has been dismissed. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of constable in Central Industrial Security Force and pursuant thereto a letter of appointment dated 6-9-2008 was issued to him with a condition that his appointment would be on probation for a period of two years which could be extended further.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner was required to fill up the character verification form at the time of his appointment which was duly submitted by him, a copy of which has been filed by the respondents along with the return as Annexure R-1. During the process of character verification it was reported by the Supdt. of Police, Morena, that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case which was registered as a Crime No. 35/2005 under sections 324 , 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was arrested pursuant thereto on 10-3-2005 and was ultimately acquitted on 11-10-2005. As the authorities found that the aforesaid information had not been disclosed and suppressed by the appellant in Column No. 12 of attestation form, therefore, in exercise of powers under Rule 25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 his services were terminated for deliberately suppressing material facts in the attestation form, by the order dated 18-10-2010. The statutory appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed by the order dated 2-9-2011 being aggrieved by which the appellant filed a W.P. No. 7927/2011 before the learned single Judge which has also suffered dismissal by the impugned order dated 9-3-2015.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the petitioner had not deliberately suppressed the material facts in the attestation form and that the said oversight occurred on account of the fact that the offence was petty and that the petitioner had already been acquitted in the same in the year 2005 itself much before the recruitment proceedings were initiated by the respondents. It is submitted that as the suppression was not deliberate and as the petitioner's character during service as probationer with the respondents was exemplary, therefore, the authorities were required to condone the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services were terminated without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order was in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, but the learned single Judge has not taken note of the aforesaid aspects while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the present case is admittedly one where the appellant had suppressed material facts in the attestation form. Learned counsel has taken the Court through the attestation form filed by the appellant, specifically column No. 12 thereof to indicate that the appellant had suppressed material facts in column No. 12 and therefore his services were terminated by the authorities in view of the express condition in paragraph 3 of the attestation form itself which provides that on suppression of any factual information which comes to the notice of the authorities, the services of the person would be liable to be terminated.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3325, Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and