Bineet Singh Bisht v. Union of India

15. In order to appreciate the contentions raised before us, let us first see the relevant forms. Interestingly, these were never placed on record by the petitioner. Fortunately, the copies thereof were submitted by respondents, alongwith the counter affidavit.

16. The relevant forms are „Verification Roll Form‟ and „Form of Enrolment.‟ Admittedly, these were filled up by petitioner himself on 16.09.2014.

17. Verification Roll Form contains the following warning at the top:-

18. Question No.12(a) and 12(b) of such Verification Roll Form reads as under:- ‚12. (क) क्या आप कभी ककसी अपराध क े किये कगरफ्तार हुए हैं, या आप पर मुकद्दमा चिाया गया है या आपको कहरासत में रखा गया है या आपको ज़मानत पर छोडा गया है या ककसी अदाित द्वारा आप पर जुमााना ककया गया है या दोष कसद्ध ककया गया है या आपको ककसी िोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा उसे ककसी प्रकार परीक्षा में वंकचत/अपात्र ठहराया गया है या क्या ककसी कवश्वकवद्यािय या किक्षा प्राकधकार संस्था द्वारा ककसी परीक्षा से वंकचत ककया गया / कनकािा गया है ? (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 as its examination/selections or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution? (ख) इस सत्यापन कचट्ठे को भरते समय क्या आपक े कवरुद्ध ककसी अदाित में या कवश्वकवद्यािय में या ककसी प्राकधकार/संस्था में कोई क े स चि रहा है ? यकद (क) या (ख) का उत्तर ‘हााँ‘ हो तो मुकद्दमा, कगरफ्तारी, कहरासत, जुमााना, दोष कसद्धद्ध दण्ड आकद का ब्योरा दें और बताएाँ कक यह फामा भरते समय अदाित / कवश्वकवद्यािय/ किक्षा प्राकधकार क े पास ककस प्रकार का क े स चि रहा है । (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If the answer to (a) or (b) is „Yes‟, full particulars of the case, arrest detention, fine, conviction, sentence etc., and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority, etc., at the time of filling up this form should be given. सत्यापन कचट्ठा Verification Roll नोट:- क ृ पया सत्यापन कचट्ठे क े आरम्भ में किखे ‘चेतावनी’ भी देखें । Note: Please also see the „warning‟ at the top of this Verification Roll.

19. The answer, by the petitioner, to both the aforesaid questions was in “no”.

20. The other form i.e. Form of Enrolment also contains warning as under:- “You are warned that if after enrolment it is found that you have given a willfully false answer to any of the first twelve of the following questions you will be liable to punished as provided in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Act, 1992.”

21. Question No.12 of the Form of Enrolment, which again is bilingual in nature, reads as under:- ‚12. (क) क्या आप कभी कगरफ्तार हुए हैं? (a) Have you ever been arrested? (ख) क्या आप कभी अकभयोकजत ककए गए हैं? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? (ग) क्या आप कभी कनरोध में रखे गए या कारावास में रखे गए हैं?

(c) Have you ever been kept under detention or imprisoned?

(घ) क्या आप ककसी न्यायािय द्वारा ककसी अपराध क े किए कसद्धदोष ठहराये गए हैं?

(d) Have you ever been convicted by Court for any offence?

(ङ) क्या आप कभी आबद्ध ककए गए हैं? (e) Have you ever been bound down? (च) क्या आप पर कभी ककसी न्यायािय द्वारा जुमााना ककया गया है? (f) Have you ever been fined by a Court of Law? (छ) क्या आप कभी भारत या भारत क े बाहर प्रवृत्त ककसी कवकध क े अधीन नजरबन्द कनष्काकसत या अन्यथा रहे हैं ? यकद हााँ, तो कवकिकियााँ बताएं | (g) Have you ever been internal, external or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or outside? If so, state particulars. (ज) क्या आपक े कवरुद्ध भारत या कवदेि क े ककसी न्यायािय में कोई अकभयोजन है? (h) Are you facing any prosecution in any court in India or abroad? (झ) क्या आपको ककसी कवश्वकवद्यािय या अन्य ककसी िैक्षकिक प्राकधकरि/संस्था द्वारा परीक्षा से वकजात या कनष्काकसत ककया गया है?

(i) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution? (ि) क्या आपको ककसी िोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा उसकी परीक्षा में बैठने/चयन ककए जाने से वकजात/कनरकहात गया है? (j) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection? (ट) क्या इस अभ्यावेदन प्रारूप क े भरते समय आपक े कवरुद्ध ककसी कवश्वकवद्यािय या अन्य ककसी िैक्षकिक प्राकधकरि/संस्थान में कोई मामिा िंकबत है? (k) Is any case pending against you in the any University or other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this enrolment form? (ठ) क्या आपको सरकार क े अधीन या अन्यथा ककसी प्रकिक्षि संस्था से उन्मोकचत/कनष्काकसत ककया गया है/वापस बुिाया गया है?

(l) Whether discharged /expelled /withdrawn from any training institution under the Government or otherwise?”

22. To all the aforesaid clauses of question No.12, petitioner, again, answered in “no”.

23. Just to remind ourselves, the claim of the petitioner is that such questions, asking about criminal antecedents, were complex which he could not understand and, therefore, he replied the same in negative.

24. His such contention is liable to be rejected for multiple reasons.

25. If we see the questions given in the aforesaid „Form of Enrolment‟, a bare reading would indicate that there is nothing technical or complex in nature. The questions are found to be very simple, specific and separately framed. It was categorically asked whether the concerned applicant had ever been arrested. It was asked whether he had ever been prosecuted. It was asked whether he had been kept under detention or imprisonment. Despite the fact that the petitioner had been booked in a criminal case and remained in custody from 28.03.2010 till 13.04.2010, he suppressed the aforesaid fact of his involvement in a criminal case.

26. Of course, question 12(a) of Verification Roll Form, in English language, was a blended one. Ideally, these should have also been separated as had been done in the other form. However, we cannot hear from a commerce graduate that he was not able to understand the same, particularly when the opening line was about the fact whether he had ever been arrested or not and also when the Hindi version was amply clear. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the tenor of the question was confusing and technical is too fanciful to be accepted. As noted, even when the questions were put separately in the other form, he showed the audacity of answering those in negative. It is not believable that he would not be aware about the pendency of the case in which he even remained behind the bars.

27. More importantly, the plea of question being confusing is nothing but an afterthought.

28. We have seen the correspondence between him and the respondents. He, nowhere, claimed that he was unable to understand any question. Rather, in his one letter dated 27.01.2018, he claimed that such reply was on account of his „bonafide mistake‟ and that he did not realize that such non-disclosure would invite termination. Moreover, when the respondents pointed out in affidavit that he had even remained behind the bars in said case, he did not controvert the same as he, for reasons best known to him, did not even choose to file any rejoinder. Thus, his only endeavour was to suppress the facts so that he could secure employment.

29. When the petitioner was issued provisional appointment letter on 28.07.2014, it was mentioned therein as well that his appointment was provisional and in case in the Verification Roll any of his claim/information was found to be false, his services would be terminated forthwith. The petitioner, however, took these warnings nonchalantly.

30. We have carefully gone through the precedents cited at the bar and keeping in mind the distinct facts of the case in hand, we are of the firm view that petitioner cannot drive home any advantage from said precedents.

31. In Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), when the petitioner had filled up the form, admittedly, no case was pending against him as he had already been discharged in criminal case three years back. Interestingly, the similar sets of queries were contained in the „Verification Roll Form‟ as are found to be contained in the case in hand. Fact, however, remains that in that case, the petitioner understood Hindi and replied in Hindi and, therefore, the order of his termination was upheld. Undoubtedly, with respect to the query/question in English in said form, Supreme Court did observe that English version of the questions could have been used with a little more clarity. However, as noted already, in the case in hand, the questions were separately put in the other form and, therefore, there was no element of any vagueness or ambiguity. Moreover, the criminal matter was sub judice when the forms were filled up by the petitioner herein.

32. In Commissioner of Police & Ors. (supra) also, when the petitioner had filled up the form, no case was pending against him and, therefore, said precedent does not stand attracted.

33. In Kuldeep Kumar (supra), the offence was committed in the year 2001 and the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2003. He filled up the form in the year 2009 and it was in that context that the Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that when he filled up the form after 8 years of the incident and 6 years of the acquittal, the petitioner therein had mere haze memories. Moreover, petitioner therein was only 16 years of age when he was booked.

34. Petitioner cannot take any advantage from the observations contained in Kumar Gorav (supra) as in that case the query in the relevant form was in English only, in which the petitioner was not proficient.

35. The situation in Davender Kumar (supra) was totally dissimilar as in that case the petitioner had made a limited prayer that he may be permitted to present his case before the competent authority so that his case is examined in light of the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh‟s case (supra) and such request was acceded to and direction was accordingly issued to the concerned authorities to consider and dispose of any such representation.

36. Though the petitioner has relied upon Rahul Chaudhary (supra), fact remains that in said case there was no suppression of facts at all. Petitioner therein had candidly admitted about the pendency of criminal case against him.

37. The fact situation of Akhilesh Kumar (supra) is also different as in that case, the concerned petitioner was found to be a juvenile and keeping in mind the objective and provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, it was observed that any such juvenile was required to be given an opportunity to lead a life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his inglorious past and, therefore, the previous prosecution could not have invited any disqualification. Here, the petitioner was not juvenile at the time of the alleged incident.

38. The legal position is no longer res integra. Reference be made to Avtar Singh (supra), a landmark judgment governing the aforesaid issue. Interestingly, both the sides have relied upon said judgment which continues to hold the field with respect to the issue in hand. Earlier, there was some conflict of opinion on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench to have an authoritative pronouncement. After considering various judgments, Supreme Court summarized the legal position. It will be worthwhile to extract the relevant observations which read as under:-

39. Thus, the picture which emerges out is very clear.

40. There is deliberate suppression of material fact with respect to a criminal case which was pending at the time when the forms were filled up by the petitioner. Respondents were thus justified in terminating the petitioner.

41. As already noticed above, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance about such previous case in which he was arrested and even remained behind the bars. Even if for a moment, it is assumed that the query contained in 12(a) of Verification Roll Form in English version was complex as several questions had been interwoven, fact remains that same form also contained the same query in Hindi which conveyed everything very appropriately. Moreover, in Enrolment Form, the questions had been bifurcated which removed possibility of any uncertainty or ambiguity.

42. Petitioner cannot claim that the offences were trivial and that since he was only 19 years of age when the incident had happened, the approach should be to condone such indiscretion rather than to brand him as criminal, particularly, when the offence was not serious. His such argument is based on observations appearing in Commissioner of Police & Ors. (supra). However, the offences herein were not trivial as the allegation against the petitioner was that of forgery and impersonation in class XII examination.

43. Right here, it would be appropriate to make reference to one judgment of Supreme Court i.e., Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran vs. Anil Kanwariya: (2021) 10 SCC 136. Therein, the petitioner was terminated on account of his failure to disclose about his criminal antecedents. While justifying such termination, it was observed that the key issue in such type of matters was neither the triviality of the matter or subsequent acquittal but was of credibility and trustworthiness of such employee. Supreme Court, in para 14 of the judgment, observed as under:-

44. Before parting, we may add that there has to be strict obedience towards such type of disclosure by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces and, invariably, there is no room for the one who endeavours to seek employment by concealing material fact about his criminal antecedents.

45. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.

MANOJ JAIN, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 12, 2023