é?» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(5) NO.3681 OF 2007 Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India xf/« i Present : Mr. P. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj the Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner, by the instant petition, is prayed for directions to respondent'No.3 to give him appointment on the post of Constable and further, send him for training under the rules. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner submitted an application dated 21.6.2005 (Annexure R-1/1) to the Superintendent of Police, Distt. Surguja (CG) for appointment on the post of Constable. The Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. (Passed origin O %February, D E R 2009) PETITIONER Shashi Kumar' Roi Son of shr‘i Suryanath Roi, aged about 27 years, Resident of Charcha Colliery, Qr. No. 554, East Nepal Gate, Police Station Charcha, District Koriya (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) \ 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur (CG) 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur (CG) 4. The Superintendent of Police, Koriya, District Koriya (CG) Superintendenf of Police, DisTT. Kor'ia vide memo dafed 315* December, 2005 (Annexure P/Z) direc’red fhe pefh‘ioner‘ To repor‘r in his office wi’rhin seven days for filling up a’r’resta’rion form as his appoin’rmen‘r on The vacan’r pos’r of Consfable is under considera‘rion. Accordingly; The petitioner filled in aTTesTm‘ion form of Annexure P/3 on 6.1.2006. However, ofher selecfed candidates were sent for training, except the petitioner. When the petitioner learnt that he has wrongly written “No" against Coloumn No.12, he submitted an affidavit on 7.2.2006 (Annexure P/4) disclosing the fact that he has wrongly stated “No" against the above coloumn, whereas he was prosecuted under Crime Nos.338/99 and 292/96 in Baikuntpur Court and vide judgments dated 7.4.2002 and 16.6.2001 he was acquitted. He was Served with the notice dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P/5), issued by respondent No.4, mentioning therein that he should be held ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable for not disclosing information about criminal caSes against him in Coloumn No.12 of the attestation form, and thereafter, vide order dated 5.5.2006 (Annexure P/6) he was held to be ineligible for appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as Soon as the petitioner learnt about the inadvertent error in filling up the attestation form, he submitted his affidavit on 7.2.2006 truthfully disclosing the fact regarding his earlier prosecution in two criminal cases and acquittal in the said cases on 7.4.2002 & 16.6.2001. He again explained the aforesaid state of affairs vide his application dated 6.11.2006 (Annexure P/7). His above contention duly reflects from the documents of Annexures P/8 & P/9 which show that the criminal cases were settled in Lok Adalat on the basis of compromise with the complainant. Q4 Learned. counsel for The. pe‘l‘i‘l‘ioner‘ argued Thaf The responden’rs have held The pefifioner‘ ‘ro be ineligible for appoinfmen‘r wi’rhouf considering his affidavif of Annexur-e P/4 and in These circumstances, a sui‘rab’le direction may be issued 'ro ’rhe responden’rs. 4. Reliance is placed on ’rhe judgmen’r in the matters of Commissioner of Police, Del/1i and anofher Vs. Dhava/ Sing/11 and the order passed by this Court in the matters of Nagendra Prafap Sing/1 Vs. The Union of India and anornerz. 5. On the other hand, submission of Mr. Pankaj shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State is that, the petitioner while filling in Coloumns 15 & 16 of the application for the post of Constable suppressed his earlier prosecution, though the candidates Were cautioned that'the candidates, who submit wrong or incomplete information in application form, may be removed from services without assigning any reason. While filling in attestation form after selection also, the petitioner answered in negatives against Columns 12A & B, wherein he was asked whether' he was ever prosecuted, and had further declared that the information furnished by him is true to his personal knowledge and belief and in case, any information furnished by him is found to be untrue or incomplete, the employer would be authorized to remove him from services without assigning any reason. ‘However, on character verification by the police, earlier prosecution of the petitioner was disclosed by Police Station—Charcha, Distt. Koriya vide his memo dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure R-1/2) and only 1 (1999) 1 scc 246 , 2 Order dt. 4.1.2007 in w1> No.5912 ofzoos 4 gg fhereaf’rer, The Vpeffffoner‘ discfosed abouT fhe fac’r of his earlier prosecu’rion by submif’ring his affidavi’r da’red 7.2.2006. 6. Reliance is placed on The judgments in The ma’n‘er‘s of Kendri'ya l/idya/aya Sangafhan and ofhers Vs. Ram Raran Yadat; and Secy. Depff. 0f Home $ecy., AP. and other: Vs. B. C'h/‘Imam Na/‘a’u4. 7, I have heard learned counsel for the parlies and gone through ’rhe maferial placed on record. 8. ‘ Undispufed fac‘rs in The presenT case are ThaT, The peTiTioner submiTTed his applicaTion for appoinTmenT on The posT of ConsTable on 21.6.2005. In reply To The quesTion in Coloumn 15 in The above applicaTion “wheTher he was arresTed in connecTion wiTh any criminal offence, and wheTher There was any compromise”, he sTaTed “No" and againsT Coloumn 16, in reply To The query “wheTher he was ever ProsecuTed” he PuT a "cross mark". Similarl , in his aTTesTaTion form againsT Coloumn 12 A also! in reply To “wheTher he was ever arresTed and prosecuTed, deTained or furnished bond, fined", he sTaTed in negaTive, Though he was prosecuTed in connecTion wiTh Cr.No.338/99 and 292/96 and acquiTTed on 7.4.2002 and 16.2001. The above facT was discl03ed by The Police STaTion—Koriya vide iTs communicaTion daTed 24.1.2006 on police verificaTion and only afTer The above facT came To The knowledge of The SuperinTendenT of Police, The peTiTioner submiTTed his affidaviT on 7.2.2006 disclosing The above facT. 9. In The maTTers of D/7ova/ Sing/’1, The candidaTe, for appoinfmenT on The posT of ConsTable, had puT in a cross mgLf. x 3 (2003) 3 scc 437 " (2005) 2 SCC 746 éé against The coloumn, in which he was required 1-0 give information about pendency of criminal cases, if any, agains’r him. In his verificaTion/a‘r’resfafion 'form in August 1995, he volun‘rar'ily informed fhe au’rhor'i’ry concerned abou’r criminal cases on 15.11.1995. However, his candidafure was cancelled on 20.11.1995. The Hon’bie Supreme Court, taking into consideration that the respondent-candidate was also acquitted on 8.12.1995 in the criminal case, and further considering that the concerned authority did not apply its mind to the intimation given by the candidate on 15.11.1995 before canceling appointment, held cancellation of his candidature invalid. From this judgment, it is also revealed that because of the order of tribunal, the candidate was reinstated in service. 10. In the matters of Nagendra Prafap Singhz also, the candidate was selected for appointment on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force. While filling Column 12 of the attestation form, he answered in the negatives to all the queries. However, he, thereafter, submitted a letter as supplementary application on 25.8.2005 making correction in Column No.12(i)(a) and disclosed that he was prosecuted for various offences on two occasions and was alsa acquitted in both the said criminal cases vide judgment & order dated 25.8.2003. Thus, considering the fact that the candidate voluntarily modified the information dated 17.8.2005 in his attestation form by his letter dated 25.8.2005 and disclosed about his earlier prosecution within seven days and also considering that the petitioner was acquitted from all the criminal charges much before April, 2005 , the writ petition of the petitioner—candidate was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. Ii: ”W 6‘ é? 11. In the maHers of Kendn'ya V/‘a’ya/ayf, ‘rhe candida’re was Selecfed for appoinfmem‘ on Wrhe posf of Physicgl Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. He was required to fiH of‘resfcrrion form, which provided iha’r “suppression of any informa‘rion will be considered a major offence for which ‘rhe punishmem‘ may exfend To removal from fhe service." In reply ‘ro Columns No. 12 & 13 of fhe affesfa’rion form, whereby The candidafe was required fo furnish informafion as To whefher he has ever been prosecufed/kep’r under defen’rion or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law of any offence, and whether any case was pending against him in any court of law at the time of filling up the > attestation form, the candidate answered both of them in negatives. In attestation form, he also certified that the information furnished by. him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. SubSequentIy, it was disclosed that some offence was pending against him on the date of filling attestation form and in these lcircumstances; the petitioner— candidate was terminated from his services on the ground of suppression of material information. Thus, allowing the petition of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph—12 as under: “12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had thediscretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly 7 é<€ clear in para 9 of fhe offer of appointment 777e purpose of soaking informaf/‘on as per co/umns 12 and 13 was nof 7‘0 f/na’ om‘ e/fher f/ve nafure or graw’fy of fhe offence or fhe resu/f of a crl'mina/ case u/f/mafe/y. The informaf/o‘n in fhe said Columns was song/7f wifh a View f0 judge fhe charocfer and anfecedenfs of fhe respondem‘ 7‘0 conf/‘nue in service or not The High CourT, in our view, has failed ’ro see ‘rhis aspec’r of fhe maHer‘. If wen’r wrong in saying Tha’r The criminal case had been subsequen‘ily wifhdrawn and ’rha‘r ’rhe o‘ offences, in which the respondenf was alleged To have been involved, were also not of serious nature. 12. In ihe ma’rfers of B. Chin/1am No/a’u" The Hon'ble Supreme Cour’r referring fo the judgment in the matters of Kendriya Wdya/aya Sangofhan with approval has observed that as is noted in. Kendr/yo V/‘dya/oya Sangafhzm's case, “fne objecf of requiring informafion in various co/umns /ike co/umn 12 of fne affesfafion form and dec/arafion fnereaffer by f/Ie candidafe is fa ascerfain and verify f/Ie characfer and anfecedenfs fo judge his suifabi/ify fo enfer info or confinue- in service. When a candidafe suppresses maferia/ information and/or gives fa/se informafion, he cannof c/aim any righf for appo/nfmenf or confinuance in service." There can be no dispute to this proposition of law. 13. In the instant case, as already observed, while applying for the post of Constable the petitioner deliberately gave false information against Columns 15 & 16 of the application, and further certified in the said application that all the information furnished by him is true to his personal knowledge and belief and in case, it is found false, hemay be removed from service without assigning any reaSon. Subsequently, after selection when he was called to fill attestation form, he again answered in negative [to the query f: é? againsf Column 12, wherein he was required ’ro furnish information as fo whether he was ever prosecuted. However, on police verification it revealed through memo of Police Station—Koriya that the petitioner was earlier prosecuted for two distinct and separate offences, however, the same resulted in his acquittal as he entered into compromise with the complainant, well before filling up his application. I4. In the present case, the petitioner was to serve as a Constable in police. department, the character and antecedent of a Constable, who is responsible for enforcing law, will have a definite bearing in the discharge of his duties as a Constable. The respondents, having considered all the aspects of the matter, have held the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable. The application as also the attestation form mentions the terms & conditions that in case, any information furnished by the candidate is ultimately found to 'be false, he can be removed from service without assigning any reason. The petitioner has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief and he has further undertaken that in case, any of the information is found to be false, the respondents shall be authorized to remove him from the service. 15. The case of Dhava/ Sing/1 is distinguishable on facts, as in the said case the candidate voluntarily disclosed about pendency of the criminal case by filing affidavit. However, he was removed from service without considering his subsequent affidavit and he was already reinstated as per directions of the tribunal. #a Similarly, case of Nagendr'a Prafap 5079/1 is also distinguishable on fac’rs from The presenf case, as in The above maTTer‘, ’rhe at‘resfafion form was filled on 17.8.2005 whereas immediafely affer‘ seven days, fhe pe’riTioner—candidafe volunl’ar'ily disclosed abou’r pendency of criminal case and ‘rhereby, cor‘r‘ecfed ’rhe error in the verifica’rion form. However, in The instan‘r case, fhe pe‘l'ifioner filed affidavil‘ only affer The facT of his earlier prosecuTion was already communicaTed To respondenTs No. 3 a 4 by Police STaTion-Koriya on police verificaTion and he was held To be ineligible afTer considering his affidaviT. 17. For The aforesaid reasons, relying upon The principles of law laid down by The Hon’ble Supreme CourT in The maTTers of Kendr/ya Wdya/aya Sangafhan and B. chin/1am Naidu, This CourT is of The considered opinion ThaT The respondenTs have noT commiTTed any illegaliTy or infirmiTy in canceling The appoinTmenT of The peTiTioner on The posT of ConsTable'on The ground of suppression of maTerial informaTion, warranTing inTerference under ArTicle 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. 18. In The resulT, The peTiTion is sans meriTs, The same is liable To be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed. Sd/— ‘ Dhirendra Mishra: Judge 19. No order as To cosTs. ,