Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Madhu Jain, JJ
EX- CONSTABLE SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9212/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Verma, Ms. Smriti S Nair
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Yadav, Mr. Vivek Nagar, Mr. V.S. Rawat
Failure to disclose a prior conviction justifies termination of employment as per recruitment policies.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 - Section 13 - Termination of employment - Petitioner, dismissed from CISF for failing to disclose prior conviction under Gambling Ordinance, despite being declared suitable for employment - The court emphasizes disclosure obligations during attestation forms and the impact of non-disclosure on employment eligibility. (Paras 9, 13, 14)
(B) Employment Law - Recruitment Policy - Failure to disclose conviction considered a serious omission, leading to dismissal - The obligation of complete disclosure is underscored. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after being recruited and undergoing training with CISF, faced termination due to undisclosed conviction under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, leading to the present writ petition challenging his dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner's failure to disclose his conviction was intentional and justified the termination under the applicable policy guidelines.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the obligation to fully disclose past convictions during employment applications and the appropriateness of the termination decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that non-disclosure of a conviction, especially one that debarred employment, was tantamount to an intentional concealment which justified termination under the policy guideline.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed challenging dismissal from cisf. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discrepancies in disclosure regarding past convictions. (Para 3) |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner’s representation against the Termination Order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 was rejected. The petitioner further prays for reinstatement in the service.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that, pursuant to the notification/advertisement dated 19.02.2018 issued by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for recruitment to the post of Constable/Driver, the petitioner had applied for the said post.
3. Having successfully completed the selection process, he was required to fill up an Attestation Form, wherein he disclosed that he had been named as an accused in FIR No. 294/2009, registered on Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9212/2023
06.11.2009 at Police Station Bhuhana, District Jhunjhunu, under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), and that, on the basis of a compromise deed, he had been acquitted of the said charges vide Order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
4. The matter was thereafter referred by the respondent to the Screening Committee for a decision.
5. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 1086/2020, which was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 29.01.2020, on a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Screening Committee was already seized of the representation of the petitioner and that the decision thereon would be communicated to the petitioner on or before 15.03.2020.
6. The case of the petitioner was thereafter considered by the 19th Standing Screening Committee, and the petitioner was declared ‘Suitable for Employment’ in the CISF, vide letter No. E-
32024(6)/Court Case/01/2020/Rectt./1104 dated 13.03.2020.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner reported to the DIG/Principal, CISF RTC Bhilai, for basic training on 07.08.2020, and submitted a fresh Attestation Form, wherein he again disclosed only the aforementioned FIR but failed to disclose that he had been convicted in Case No. 50/2017 dated 20.04.2017 under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance , 1949, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, with a default stipulation of one day’s simple imprisonment in case of non-payment, as per the Order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9212/2023 Judicial Magistrate, Bhuhana.
8. After the petitioner had joined service, a Character and Antecedents Verification Report dated 13.08.2021, issued by the Office of the District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, was received by the respondent, which disclosed the fact of the above conviction.
9. Based on this information, in the 24th Sitting of the 19th Standing Screening Committee held on 03.11.2022, the petitioner was declared ‘Unsuitable for Employment’ in the CISF, relying upon Annexure-A of the Policy Guidelines issued by the MHA vide a Circular No. UO No. 1-45020/6/2010-Pers.II dated 01.02.2012, as modified by the MHA Corrigendum No. 1-45020/6/2010-pers-II/218 dated 16.07.2021, wherein it was specifically stipulated that any person convicted under Section 13 of the Gambling Act shall not be considered for recruitment.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted of a minor offence and visited with a minor punishment of a fine of Rs. 100/- only, with a default stipulation of one day’s imprisonment. He submits that there was no reason for the petitioner not to disclose the same in his Attestation Form. He further submits that this information had, in fact, already been disclosed by the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petit
