$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13.11.2024 + W.P.(C) 6098/2016 KRISHAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. H.S. Dahiya and Mr. Yuv Dahiya, Advs.

versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CISF & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

O R D E R

% 13.11.2024 NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (in short “CISF”), terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he had concealed, in his attestation form and in the questionnaire form, that he had been prosecuted in Case No. 81/06 under Sections 341, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which had been registered and for which a Charge Sheet No. 67/06, dated 19.07.2006 had been framed at Bagad Police Station, Rajasthan against him.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the FIR, that has been referred to by the respondents in the Impugned Order, had been registered on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6098/2016 Page 1 of 14 an incident arising out of an altercation between his family members which took place sometime in 2006. When the charge sheet was filed, the family members entered into a settlement and on the first date itself, that is 14.08.2006, the case was closed and the charges were dropped against the petitioner. Five years from that incident, the petitioner applied for recruitment in the CISF in the year 2011. He was in a state of confusion whether the case, though had been closed on the basis of a compromise, still needed to be disclosed in the attestation form and in response to the questionnaire. Based on the advice received from his peers, he mentioned in the attestation form/questionnaire that there was no case which was registered or pending against him. The petitioner claims that this was a bona fide mistake for which the petitioner should not be penalised.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, submits that mere non-disclosure of the above case could not have resulted in the termination of the services of the petitioner. He also places reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sumit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2017:DHC:5129- DB and Davender Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

2018:DHC:1227-DB.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the attestation form contained a specific warning to the effect that furnishing of a false information or suppression of a factual information would be a disqualification and likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government Service. She Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6098/2016 Page 2 of 14 submits that despite this warning, in answer to Question No. 12(b), which sought the candidate to disclose if he/she had ever been prosecuted, the petitioner chose to answer in the negative. She submits that even in the questionnaire form filled by the petitioner in column no. 4, which required the petitioner to disclose if any FIR had been lodged against him in the past, and if any charge sheet was filed, the outcome thereof, the petitioner again chose to answer in the negative instead of giving the details of the charge sheet. She submits that as the petitioner was seeking appointment to a disciplined Force, non-disclosure of relevant material itself would be a ground to disqualify him from the appointment.

5. In support she places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 7 SCC 536 and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited &

Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. In the present case, what would be important to note at the outset is that the peti