C.W.P. No.21577 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21577 of 2008 Date of Decision:23.12.2008 C. Ranbir Singh ............... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Jabgir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes K.KANNAN J. **** The petitioner, who had been selected to the post of Constable, found his position wilting under his feet when the services were dispensed with by the impugned order of the Senior Superintendent of Police on the ground that in his application seeking for appointment, he had deliberately concealed the fact of pendency of a criminal case against him. 2. More specifically, the questions in his application form were: “Have you been arrested in any case, if yes, details thereof", which he left blank. Similarly, in the attestation form with reference to column No.13(1) a, b, c, i.e. "(a) have you ever been arrested, (b) have you ever been prosecuted, (c), have you ever been kept under detention", he ticked 'No' in the above columns, whereas he knew that there had been a criminal case registered against him and he was arrested on his being tried by a criminal court. The case which he was facing a trial was pursuant to FIR No.51 dated 22.02.2000 registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station, Sampla, C.W.P. No.21577 of 2008 -2- District Rohtak. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 that suppression of material facts at the time of seeking public appointment is a serious matter that would entail a severe punishment. There have been many instances in our Indian social life when we find that the most disciplined force, such as the police is the very anti-thesis of disciplined behaviour; a lathi that is wielded to quell violence also becomes the bludgeon for unleashing violence. A person that must have learnt the art of handling the arms that are far away from the reach of a common man has come to the petitioner too early in his life even before he joined the police service. He may not have been convicted yet, but the fact that he was shown as having been involved in a case under the Arms Act is sufficient to describe his unsuitability to the recruitment to police force. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Parveen Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others in C.W.P. No.223 of 2008 decided on 24.07.2008, where the Court found, while adverting to the issue of proportionality of punishment in relation to decision to disengage a person from the services for non-disclosure of fact in the application form, that it ought to be serious enough and recording a finding that it was not serious enough, held that it would be sufficient, if stoppage of two annual increments was made. We do not believe that any question of law was laid down in the said decision except that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found that punishment was disproportionate and it chose to take a less stringent view. We are governed by the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide, UPSRTC V. Ram Kishan Arora (2007) 4 SCC 627; U.S.P. V. Gopal Rajiv Prabhakara Hari Babu (2008) 5 SCC 569 , which have laid down that even apart from the fact of proportionality of punishment, the employer is entitled C.W.P. No.21577 of 2008 -3- to lay down norms for prospective employees for the suitability of employment to a particular post. We see no reasons to interfere with the decision of the respondents and dismiss the writ petition as bereft of merits. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 23, 2008 Pankaj*