Naveen Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the termination order dated 30.06.2014, passed by the respondent/Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), terminating him from the post of Constable. The petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Screening Committee dated 23.02.2015 wherein it was decided that he was not suitable for appointment in the CISF on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Lastly, the petitioner has raised a grievance against an order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Inspector General/Training Sector, CISF, rejecting his representation dated 2018:DHC:5956-DB 30.01.2015 against his termination order.

2. A glance at the facts of the case is necessary. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the CISF on 26.10.2013, prior whereto on 07.08.2013, a case under Sections 13/3/67 of the Gambling Act, was registered against him and some other co-accused, vide FIR No.164 dated 07.08.2013, Police Station Sahlawas. It is not in dispute that at the time of filling up his application for submitting his candidature, the petitioner did not state anything about registration of the captioned FIR. While the petitioner was still on probation, the impugned termination order dated 30.06.2014 was issued by the competent authority holding that he was not fit for permanent appointment in the CISF.

3. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.09.2014, to the Director General, CISF, wherein while candidly admitting to the fact that at the time of his recruitment, while filling up the columns of the Attestation Form, in the column pertaining to pending police case etc. he had marked “No”, he took a plea that at that stage he had no knowledge about the said case registered against him. In the said representation, the petitioner also pointed out that after receiving summons from the concerned Court, he had faced a trial and vide judgment dated 06.09.2014, the trial Court had acquitted him of the charges levelled under Sections 13/3/67 of the Gambling Act. It appears that thereafter, based on the petitioner’s representation, his case was placed before the Screening Committee along with several other candidates and the said Committee had turned down his candidature on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case.

4. It is noteworthy that by the date the matter was placed before the Screening Committee i.e. on 14.11.2014, the judgment acquitting the petitioner had already been pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Judge, which as noted above, was dated 06.09.2014. Further, a copy of the said decision had been forwarded by the petitioner to the competent authority. On receiving the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the petitioner submitted his representations/appeals dated 23.02.2015 & 06.04.2015, to the Director General, CISF, which were rejected vide order dated 12.06.2015, by observing that there is no provision of a revision/appeal in the CISF Rules against termination of the service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Mr.Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, the respondents ignored the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 which has expounded and clarified the legal position on the question of suppression of information or of submitting false information relating to a criminal case in a verification form. He also relies on a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2018 in WP(C) No.2916/2017 titled Davender Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., to fortify his submission that it is a fit case where the matter ought to be remanded back to the respondents for a re-consideration by the Competent Authority in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).

6. Per contra, Mr.Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the service of the petitioner, who was a probationer, has been rightly terminated by the respondents as he was found unsuitable for appointment in the CISF due to his involvement in a criminal case; that merely because the petitioner has been subsequently acquitted by the trial court, would not be a reason for the respondents to overlook the nature of allegations levelled against him in the said criminal case and that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of a criminal case pending against him by not disclosing the same in the attestation form. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the policy guidelines dated 01.02.2012, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to contend that cases under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, falls under serious offences mentioned in the said guidelines and hence the respondents were justified in turning down the candidature of the petitioner. He concludes by citing a recent judgment dated 08.01.2018 of the Supreme Court in a batch of petitions lead matter registered as WP

(C) No.67/2018 entitled “Union Territory, Chandigarh

Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.”

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, carefully perused the records and examined the decisions cited by both sides. We may note at the outset that the facts of the case are undisputed. While the criminal case pending against the petitioner had attained finality on 06.09.2014, when the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhajjar, had acquitted him and seven other accused in FIR 164 dated 07.08.2013, yet the Screening Committee of the respondents in its meeting held on 14.11.2014 did not take into consideration the said judgment, copy whereof was duly furnished by the petitioner. The operative para of the judgment dated 06.09.2014 reads as follows:-

8. We may note that there is no discussion of the criminal case against the petitioner by the Screening Committee except for cursorily recording that he was involved in a criminal case. This, itself, runs contrary to the decision relied on by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Pardeep Kumar & Anr. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court had observed that the Screening Committee must examine the candidature with utmost care and in the said context, had set out a comparative table in para 14 of the said judgment referring to the criminal cases in which the respondents in the captioned appeals were involved and the reasoning given for their acquittal, viza-viz the consideration given by the Screening Committee to the said cases.

9. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Screening Committee before passing the impugned order. Rather a one line order has been passed by the Screening Committee recording that the petitioner is unsuitable for appointment as he was involved in a criminal case. No discussion whatsoever has taken place with regard to the nature of the offence in the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved; whether he was acquitted or discharged; whether it was a honourable acquittal or benefit of doubt had been given to him for other reasons etc. We are therefore of the opinion that it is a fit case where the impugned orders dated 30.01.2015, 23.02.2015 & 17.04.2015, ought to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded back to the respondents for re-examination in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Avtar Singh (supra) & Pardeep Kumar (supra).

10. Accordingly, while quashing the aforesaid orders dated 30.01.2015, 23.02.2015 & 17.04.2015, the matter is remanded back to the respondents with a direction to re-consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the documents on the record of this petition and take a reasoned decision within eight weeks from today under written intimation to the petitioner. In the event, the decision taken by the respondents is adverse to the petitioner, it would be open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law.

11. The writ petition is disposed of with no orders as to costs.

12. Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to observe that the respondents are continuing to rely on a policy guideline dated 01.02.2012, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for considering cases of candidates for appointment in CISF where criminal cases were pending against them at the time of appointment, without taking note of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra followed by the case of Devender Kumar (supra) In these circumstances, the respondents are required to undertake a fresh exercise to formulate the policy guidelines keeping in mind the directions issued in the captioned cases. Needful shall be done within three months and a copy of the revised guidelines shall be placed on record within three weeks thereafter, failing which the Registry shall place the matter back before the Court for appropriate orders. HIMA KOHLI, J REKHA PALLI, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2018