IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8507/2009 Date of decision: 23rd March, 2010 RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Preeti Dalal and Ms. Jayshree Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) 1. Rule DB 2. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice and waives formal notice. It is contended by the parties that the matter involves a short issue and may be disposed of on the basis of the available material which has been placed on record alongwith the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has also kept available the original record of the case which has been perused by us. 3. So far as the material facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are concerned, there is no real dispute to the same and to the extent necessary, they are noticed hereafter. The petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by a notice of termination dated 29th July, 2007 and the termination order dated 19th August, 2007 based WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.1 thereon as per the counter affidavit at page 45 of the paper book. 4. The petitioner was born on 10th May, 1986. He had applied for appointment to the post of Constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for brevity hereafter) sometime in 2006. The petitioner has submitted that by a communication dated 4th November, 2006 he was informed of his selection for the post of Constable with the CRPF. He was, therefore, required to fill in the verification roll (CRP Form No. 25) under Rule 14(b) of the CRPF Rules. 5. The copy of the verification roll which was filled up by the petitioner has been placed before us. Our attention has been drawn to several warnings which were informed to the candidate who was filling up the verification roll mentioned in the printed form. Warning no. 3 in this behalf which is relied upon by the respondents reads as follows :- “3. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.” The petitioner has landed in trouble for the reason that he answered column no. 12(a) of the form also relied upon by the respondents, in the negative. The said column reads as follows :- “12(a) Have you ever been arrested prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined convicted, by court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution?” 6. On 2nd February, 2007, the respondents appear to have sent the WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.2 verification roll of the petitioner for verification to the District Mahendragarh, Haryana for verification of his character and antecedents in terms of Rule 14(a) of the CRPF Rules. In response thereto, the respondents received a communication dated 26th June, 2007 from the office of the Additional DIG, Police which reads as follows:- “OFFICE OF THE ADDL DIGP, GC CRPF BANGRASIA, BHOPAL(MP) NO. V.1.1/2007.EC.V Dated, the 26 June 2007 To, The Commandant 89 Bn, CRPF At location. Subject : REG ADVERSE REMARKS ON VERIFICATION REPORT OF CHARACTER AND ANTECEDENTS. Verification Roll in respect No. 0608900099 Ct/Bug Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal was sent to Collector & District Magistrate, Distt. Mahendragarh, Haryana for verification of his character and antecedents vide this office letter of even number dated 2/1/2006. In reply, Collector & District Magistrate, Mahendragarh, Haryana has reported vide this letter no. 354/R/MA/Veri dated 12/6/2007 that he was involved in Case No.166 dated 18/6/1994 u/s 325 IPC at Police Station Nangal Choudhary and the case under process in the court. The verification Roll of individual alongwith Verification report received from above authority are enclosed herewith in original for further necessary action please. Encl 05 leaves For Addl. DIGP, GC CRPF Bhopal” 7. On receipt of this adverse report against the petitioner from the authorities at Mahendragarh, Haryana, the respondents proceeded to take action in terms of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was informed by a notice dated 29th July, 2007, that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.3 expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served or tendered upon him. This notice was followed up by an order of termination dated 29th August, 2007 which has now been placed before us. 8. The petitioner sent a representation dated 11th September, 2007 raising several objections to the action of the respondents however the same was of no avail. The petitioner appears to have assailed the order of termination by way of a statutory appeal to the Inspector General of Police, CRPF. This appeal was rejected by an order dated 14th October, 2007. The petitioner then preferred a revision assailing the two orders against him by way of a mercy petition which was again rejected by an order passed on 24th April, 2008. 9. The petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents by way of the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the same is arbitrary and is premised on no material at all. It has further been contended that the petitioner hails from a rural area and background belonging to the economically weaker and backward section of society who had been implicated in a false case registered by the police in Haryana in 1994 when he was barely eight years of age. The further submission is that the petitioner was tried by the juvenile court and honourably acquitted of the charge as back as on 24th December, 1994 when he was still barely about eight years of age. In view of his tender age at the time of registration of the FIR as well as his acquittal, the petitioner could not possibly have remembered the same at the time of filling up the enrollment form as well as the verification roll. The submission is that the petitioner was incapable of comprehending the proceedings which had been undertaken as a result of the registration WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.4 of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that no declaration, which was false to the knowledge of the petitioner, was made by the petitioner while filling up the verification form. 10. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which would impact the consideration of the conduct of the petitioner so far as the implication and acquittal in the criminal case is concerned. It has been pointed out that the said statute has been amended on two occasions, firstly in the year 2000 and thereafter in the year 2006 each time evidencing the legislative intent of ensuring that the rights of a child are staunchly protected and ensured. Reliance has been placed on Section 25 and 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 to contend that the petitioner's implication in the criminal case as well as his trial are of no relevance or consequence so far as the consideration by the respondents is concerned as well as the confidentiality attached to the proceedings against a person covered by the definition of juvenile. 11. A further submission has been premised on the manner in which the query at column no. 12 has been worded by the respondents to contend that the respondents have not required a person to disclose if he was prosecuted and acquitted in any case to be disclosed thereunder. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Preeti Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly contended that the petitioner has concealed material information and has failed to disclose the case in which he was implicated for which criminal proceedings were initiated against him which constituted information falling within the realm of information to be disclosed in the verification roll. It is contended that WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.5 as a result, the conduct of the petitioner falls squarely within the conduct against which the petitioner stood warned by the caution appearing at serial no. 3 on the front page of the verification roll. It has been urged at length that the petitioner had suppressed factual information in the verification roll and furnished false information which clearly falls within the purview of a notified disqualification rendering him unfit for employment with the government. 13. In support of her submissions, Ms. Dalal, learned counsel has strongly relied on a pronouncement of a Division Bench of this court dated 19th October, 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 11460/2004 entitled Yogesh Kumar Singh vs. UOI & Ors. 14. Before dealing with the other contentions, it is essential to consider the requirements of column no. 12(a) of the verification roll which the petitioner was required to fill up. We find that a person filling up the column is required to disclose, inter alia, as to whether he had been “arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined convicted, by court or law for any offence”. This query gives options to a person filling the form akin to a multiple choice question where the most appropriate answer which fits the available options is to be tick marked. It is evident that the draftsman has kept in mind that at the time of filling up the verification roll, even if a person has been implicated in a case, the same may be at any stage from registration to its final decision. Therefore, the column carefully provides for the various stages of a criminal trial, bearing in mind that only such conduct which could disqualify or debar a person from employment by the respondents is required to be disclosed. The stages which are required to be disclosed are clearly mentioned as WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.6 options to the candidate filling the form and not cumulatively. For instance, in respect of someone who has been convicted, it is obvious that he would have been prosecuted. However, in respect of a person who has been prosecuted and acquitted, what is of relevance is the acquittal and not the fact that he has been prosecuted; kept under detention; bound down etc. However, as we have already noticed above, there is no query in the form with regard to disclosure of a prosecution resulting in an acquittal. A bare examination of the query would disclose that the same also suffers from several printing mistakes inasmuch, as, the same is hopelessly and incorrectly punctuated. But the intent and purport thereof is clearly evident. The same is also, in fact, made clear by the same query in hindi. The requirement of column 12(a) would therefore be that in case a person who was, at the time of filling up the verification form, undergoing prosecution or had been arrested or had been kept under detention or stood bound down or fined or convicted by a court of law for any offences is required to disclose the same. So far as concluded cases are concerned, the respondents have asked for only details of the case if the candidate stood convicted by a court of law. 15. As noticed above, the petitioner stood acquitted by the juvenile court. No column for informing the respondents in case of an acquittal has been stipulated in the form. This information was not sought, as the respondents did not consider it relevant for their purpose, to get information with regard to a criminal case in which the candidate had been acquitted. 16. This matter can be examined from yet another perspective. The petitioner has placed before us a copy of the judgment dated 24th WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.7 December, 1994 passed by the Juvenile Court, Bhiwani in the case against the petitioner arising out of the FIR No. 166 dated 18th June, 1994. Perusal thereof would show that the prosecution could not prove its version and the court found nothing incriminating against the petitioner. For this reason, the court even dispensed with recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of juvenile i.e. the petitioner. A clear finding has been returned that no charge was proved against the juvenile and he stood acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner would have had hardly any role to play in the said proceedings. It is clear that there was no remarkable or memorable event which took place before the juvenile court, such as the examination or cross examination of the petitioner, which could have got embedded in his memory. 17. It has been argued before us that both on the date of his implication as well as on the date of the acquittal, the petitioner was of the tender age of eight years. We also find it difficult to expect that a child of eight years would comprehend the proceedings to which he was subjected to before the juvenile court. A reasonable view of normal human conduct would lead us to accept the submission on behalf of the petitioner that it is highly improbable for anyone to recollect an event which may have occurred twelve years prior, particularly when the event has occurred when the person was barely eight years of age. 18. Mr. Rakesh Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 which would apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch, as, we are concerned with a prosecution of a child in the year 1994. This statutory provision reads as follows :- WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.8 “25. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.” From a bare reading of this statutory provision, it is evident that the legislative intent was that even the conviction for an offence under any law cannot be treated as a disqualification which would attach to a person who is subject to the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. In view of the statutory provision, even if the petitioner had been convicted, the same could not have been treated as a disqualification for the purpose of employment by the respondents. 19. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 would show that the same was enacted for the reason that justice system as available for adults was not considered suitable for application to the juveniles. So far as applicability is concerned, a juvenile has been defined under sub-section (h) of section 2 to mean a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years under the Act of 1986. 20. In view of the above, the petitioner's implication in the criminal case and his being subjected to trial are of no relevance or legal consequence for any purpose at all. The disclosure of the information with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner was, therefore, wholly irrelevant and its non-disclosure in the given circumstances cannot be said to be with a view or intent to suppress any incriminating fact or was calculated to deceive. 21. We also find that so far as the verification report received by WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.9 the respondents is concerned, in the communication dated 26th June, 2007 from the office of the Additional DIG, Police, it has been stated that the Collector & District Magistrate, Mahendragarh has reported that not only was the petitioner involved in Case No. 166 dated 18th June, 1994 but the case was still under process. This is clearly an incorrect report of the facts of the case. The verification report does not disclose the material fact that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of his implication and that the case had been tried by the juvenile court. The report also does not disclose the fact that the petitioner stood acquitted long ago. In this background the action which was premised on the report was obviously wrongly directed as the report itself was hopelessly incomplete and erroneous. 22. We may refer to the Division Bench decision of this court in Ex.(Recruit) Constable Nirbhai Singh v. UOI & Others 2007(94) DRJ 325 (DB). In this case, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case on 27th December, 1997 after he had given the declaration that no criminal case was pending against him. The declaration was made on 6th October, 1997. It was also a stipulation in the application form that if after submission of the form the candidate is detained or deprived of any right or convicted by a Court of law then detailed information of the same must be furnished to the DCP, 3rd Battalion of Delhi Police immediately, failure to do so was deemed as suppression of information. The petitioner, however, failed to furnish the requisite information about the registration of a case vide FIR No.100 against him under Section 306/34 IPC. After his selection he joined the department on 27th March, 1998. Eventually vide judgment dated 01st WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.10 September, 1998 he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot as no evidence was found against him. The show cause notice dated 28th September, 1998 was issued to him as to why his service should not be discontinued under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 for concealment of the fact of his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice, stating that he was unaware of the procedure that he had to make a declaration in respect of a criminal proceeding launched against him after the submission of his application. However, the respondents held that the same was devoid of any weight and that ignorance of rules is no excuse. As a result the petitioner’s services were terminated which action was the subject matter of challenge in the case. 23. The court was thus concerned with a question regarding enforcement of the clause in the application form providing for a deemed presumption of suppression and concealment, in case of non declaration of an event occurring in future. 24. It is noteworthy that the court appointed an amicus curiae who placed the entire conspectus of the law in issue. The attention of the court was drawn to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in (1999) 1 SCC 246 Commissioner of Police Vs. Dhaval Singh wherein it was held that a finding of intentional suppression was necessary and the same cannot be applied in every case where incorrect information is filled up in the form. The Supreme Court was of the view that the defence of the person ought to be considered and the authority should not proceed simply to cancel the candidature on the basis of incorrect WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.11 disclosure. 25. It is noteworthy that even in Ex. (Recruit) Constable Nirbhai Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. (Supra), the court was of the view that the defence of the petitioner to the effect that he did not remember the stipulation in the application form which has been filled nearly a year back, requiring him to make disclosure with regard to pendency of a criminal case, is quite plausible. It was held that a person filling up a form may not even retain a copy or remember covenants contained therein so as to inform the authority at a later date of the happening of an eventuality. In this case, the court was of the view that the authorities had acted on the presumption raised as per the clause in the form without considering the defence of the petitioner. The court further held that it had not been shown that the petitioner had the knowledge of the requirement to inform the authorities, or of its consequences, and that he deliberately hid the factum of his subsequent arrest in order to secure employment. Non-communication of the information of arrest, to be actionable, was held to be suppression of actual information. 26. Even in (2003) 3 SCC 437 Kendriya Vidyalaya Vs. Ram Rathan Yadav, the defence of the employee was considered but rejected as not plausible. After considering all these judicial pronouncements and the facts of the case, the court held as follows:- “11. It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506B read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the respondent as against column Nos. 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the respondent is holder of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent WP (C) No.8507/2009 Page No.12 man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he could understand column Nos. 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of column Nos. 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English Words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken hold of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instruction of respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of column Nos. 12 and 13. It is not the case that column Nos. 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said "no" as against column Nos. 12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent of the nature of offences. If our opinion, were not material. The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. 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 discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 or the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has