IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1850 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HAMIL RAPHAEL, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, MODEL RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, SILENT VALLEY (ATTAPPADY), RESIDING AT ROSE HOUSE, PUTHENTHOPE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 1850/2008-T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4-6946/1995 DATED 16/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.60859/SSB3/2004/HOME DATED 07/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/02/2005 IN SESSION CASE NO.390/2001 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK NO.II, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY JUDL. IST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ATTINGAL. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24/05/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.284/07/HOME DATED 14/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4/6946/95 DATED 24/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2008 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.1107/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC) NO.IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE ATTESTTION FORM. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE G.O.(P)NO.314/94/HOME DATED 26/12/1994. EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D/202/GL/2004 DATED 29/01/2004 OF THE POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TR/65/SB/VR/S/04 DATED 11/06/2004 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RIRAL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1850 of 2008 ---------------------------- Dated 9th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment as Warden in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department on advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission, by Ext.P1 order dated 16.11.2003. The appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedents as contemplated in rule 10(b) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 appointment order, the petitioner filled up and submitted a questionnaire in the prescribed form and a copy thereof is on record as Ext.R1(a). In column 15-A thereof he had stated that criminal cases are pending against him. In column 15-B he had also furnished the number of three such cases. They are (1) S.C.No.390 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram which arose from Crime No.66/1997 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, (2) C.C.No.562 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal which arose from Crime No.101/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, and (3) C.C.No.442 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the WP(C).No.1850/2008 2 Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attintal which arose from Crime No.4/2002 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. The number of the case S.C.No.390/2001 was wrongly given as S.C.No.390/200 omitting the digit `1'. However, the petitioner had disclosed the fact that he is involved in criminal cases and had also given the number of three such criminal cases. 3. It appears in addition to the above three cases the petitioner was also an accused in C.C.No.553 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal which arose from Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station. Though in column 15-A of Ext.R1(a) the petitioner had disclosed the fact that he is involved in criminal cases and had also furnished the details of three cases, he omitted to refer to C.C.No.553 of 2002. It is now evident from the pleadings that a week after the proforma was submitted and two weeks after the petitioner was appointed and he joined duty, Crime No.194/2003 of Kadinamkulam Police Station was also registered against him on 30.12.2003. Evidently, because of the fact that it was registered on 30.12.2003 the petitioner did not refer to that case in Ext.R1(a) which was submitted on 24.11.2003. 4. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was acquitted in S.C.No.390 of 2001 by judgment delivered on 10.2.2005. Ext.P4 WP(C).No.1850/2008 3 notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal discloses that the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.562 of 2002 by judgment delivered on 20.7.2004, in C.C.No.442/2002 by judgment delivered on 10.6.2004 and in C.C.No.553/2002 by judgment delivered on 7.6.2005. The pleadings also disclose that pursuant to the registration of Crime No.194/2003 on 30.12.2003 the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in S.C.No.1107 of 2006 which arose from that crime and by that Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 20.12.2008 he was acquitted in the said case also by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. After the petitioner was acquitted in four cases and while S.C.No.1107 of 2006 was pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram the Government issued Ext.P2 memorandum dated 7.5.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be debarred from appointment to public service. It was alleged that as the petitioner was an accused in S.C.No.390/2001, C.C.No.562/2002 and C.C.No.442/2002 he is not suitable for appointment in public service. In this context, it is relevant to note that though Ext.R1(a) proforma was furnished by the petitioner on 24.11.2003, within a week of his appointment, the Government took nearly three years and six months WP(C).No.1850/2008 4 to issue Ext.P2 memorandum. In Ext.P2 memorandum it was also alleged that the petitioner had given the case number of S.C.No.390/2001 incorrectly in the proforma and thereby furnished false information. Reverting back to Ext.R1(a), the proforma, it can be seen that the case number was given as C.C.No.390/200. The figure `1' was omitted. On receipt of Ext.P2 memorandum, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply dated 7.5.2007. In that he stated that he has not suppressed any fact from the Government and that he has furnished the available information to the best of his knowledge. Though in Ext.P2 memorandum the Government had referred only to three cases and the said three cases formed the basis on which the memorandum was issued, when he submitted Ext.P5 reply the petitioner brought to the notice of the Government that he was an accused in C.C.553/2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal and that in the said case also he was acquitted. He also referred to Crime No.194/2003 which was registered on 30.12.2003 after Ext.R1(a) proforma was submitted and stated that he has been acquitted in all the cases except in that case which is pending trial. 6. The Government considered Ext.P5 reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P2 memorandum and passed Ext.P6 order WP(C).No.1850/2008 5 directing that the petitioner's appointment as Warden in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department shall not be given effect to for the reason that he had suppressed the fact of his involvement in Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station and had partially suppressed the other cases registered against him in the verification roll filled up by him on 24.11.2003 and that his general character and antecedents are not satisfactory. Consequently, the Director, Scheduled Tribes Development Department passed Ext.P7 order dated 24.12.2007 removing the petitioner from service. Exts.P2, P6 and P7 are under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to continue in service based on Ext.P1 appointment order with all consequential benefits. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and allowances which was denied by Exts.P6 and P7 orders. It is contended that the petitioner has not suppressed any material information in the verification roll filled up and submitted by him on 24.11.2003 and that the failure to refer to C.C.No.553/2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal which arose from Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station was not deliberate or willful. It is contended that as the petitioner had disclosed the fact WP(C).No.1850/2008 6 that criminal cases had been registered against him and had also furnished the number of three such cases, the mere fact that reference was not made to one case due to inadvertence cannot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed material facts while filling up and submitting the verification roll. It is further contended that mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case is not a ground to hold that his character and antecedents are not satisfactory and that mere registration of a criminal case/cases cannot straight away lead to the conclusion that a person is unfit for appointment in Government service. 7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that the petitioner had failed to refer to C.C.No.532/2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal which arose from Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station and therefore he had suppressed materials facts while submitting the verification roll. It is also contended that the Additional Director General of Police (Intellignce) had reported that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen and therefore he cannot be considered fit for Government service particularly that of Warden in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department and that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) had also reported that the general WP(C).No.1850/2008 7 character and antecedents of the petitioner are not satisfactory. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent also. Along with the said counter affidavit, the letter dated 11.6.2004 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural to the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) is produced as Exts.R2(b). In the said counter, the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent are reiterated. 8. I heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from Ext.R1(a) proforma dated 24.11.2003 submitted by the petitioner that he had disclosed his involvement in criminal cases and had also furnished the number of three such cases. Therefore, the instant case is not one where the petitioner had failed to disclose the fact that he was involved in criminal cases. As a mater of fact, he had conceded the fact that he is involved in criminal cases and had also furnished the number of three such cases. Though the pleadings disclose that subsequently on 30.12.2003 yet another criminal case was registered against the petitioner, that is not stated as a reason by the Government to justify the action taken by them. The petitioner could WP(C).No.1850/2008 8 not have when he submitted the verification roll on 24.11.2003 foreseen the fact that a crime will be registered against him a week later. The Government have in Ext.P2 memorandum stated that the petitioner had failed to disclose the registration of Crime No.194/2003 in the verification roll. As noticed earlier, the verification roll is dated 24.11.2003 and it was furnished on the very same day. The Government does not dispute the fact that Crime No.194/2003 was registered only on 30.12.2003. If that be so, nothing turns on the failure of the petitioner to mention about that case in the proforma furnished by him on 24.11.2003. It cannot be said that by failing to furnish information regarding a crime that was registered only on 30.12.2003, the petitioner had suppressed material facts when he submitted the verification roll on 24.11.2003. 9. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had referred to three criminal cases registered against him in the verification roll. After the verification roll was received, the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural verified the character and antecedents of the petitioner. He thereafter forwarded Ext.R2(b) report to the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) wherein after referring to the said three cases he also reported the fact that the petitioner was involved in yet another case, that is, Crime WP(C).No.1850/2008 9 No.194/2003 which was registered on 30.12.2003. For these reasons, the Superintendent of Police reported that the character and antecedents of the petitioner are not satisfactory. Ext.R2(b) report was sent to the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) on 11.6.2004, who in turn furnished his report to the Government on 13.11.2004. By then, the petitioner was acquitted of two criminal cases, namely C.C.No.562/2002 on 20.7.2004 and C.C.No.442/2002 on 10.6.2004. He was acquitted in S.C.No.390/2001 on 10.2.2005 and he was acquitted in C.C.553/2002 on 7.6.2005. No one of the authorities had reported to the Government about the petitioner's involvement in C.C.No.553/2002. The Government came to know of the said case only when the petitioner volunteered that information in Ext.P5 reply. But for the petitioner disclosing the said fact, the Government would not have come to know of the said case. It is relying on the petitioner's failure to disclose about the registration of Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station from which C.C.No.553/2002 arose that the Government have in Ext.P6 held that he is guilty of suppressing his involvement in that case in the verification roll filled up by him on 24.11.2003. 10. The learned Government Pleader contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Bipad WP(C).No.1850/2008 10 Bhanjan Gayen ((2008) 11 SCC 314) that even if the petitioner was acquitted later, as he had given wrong information while filling up the verification roll, his service was liable to be terminated. The learned Government Pleader contended that Ext.P6 would show that the petitioner has been found to be unsuitable for appointment to Government service for the reason that he had willfully suppressed material information while submitting the proforma and that it discloses lack of integrity on his part. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted. The fact that the petitioner was involved in C.C.No.553/2002 and the fact that he was acquitted in the said case by judgment delivered on 7.6.2005 are also not disputed. Though the letter dated 13.11.2004 sent by the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) to the Government is referred to in Ext.P6, when the Government issued Ext.P2 memorandum dated 7.5.2007, the Government did not refer to the said case (C.C.No.553/2002 arising from Crime No.99/2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station) evidently for the reason that the report of the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) did not contain any such reference. It was only because the petitioner had furnished information relating to C.C.No.553/2002 in Ext.P5 reply that the Government became aware of that case. By then, the petitioner had also been acquitted in that case. In my WP(C).No.1850/2008 11 opinion, as the petitioner had disclosed the fact that he is involved in criminal cases and had also furnished the details of at least three such cases, it cannot be said that the petitioner had willfully suppressed material facts or withheld relevant information from the Government when he submitted the verification roll. The emphasis in the verification roll is only the involvement of the candidate in the criminal cases. Disclosure of the details of the cases is only secondary. It is the candidate's failure to disclose the fact that criminal cases have been registered against him that can be said to be an act of suppression. In the instant case, the petitioner had disclosed the fact that criminal cases have been registered against him. He had also given the number of three such cases. In such circumstances, the mere failure to give the details of the 4th case cannot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had willfully suppressed material facts while submitting the verification roll. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. 11. That takes me to the question whether the mere involvement of the petitioner in four criminal cases and the registration of a fifth case against him after his appointment is a good ground to hold that his character and antecedents are not satisfactory. It is not WP(C).No.1850/2008 12 in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the five cases. The judgments of acquittal have become final. The petitioner was appointed on 16.11.2003 and he furnished the verification roll on 24.11.2003. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Rural was furnished to the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Thiruvananthapuram on 11.6.2004. The Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Thiruvananthapuram in turn forwarded his report to the Government on 13.11.2004. The Government initiated action on the basis of the said reports only on 7.5.2007, nearly two and a half years after it received the report of the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) and more than three and a half years after the petitioner was appointed. The Government which was aware of the fact that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases at the time when he was appointed sat on the reports and initiated action more than three and a half years after he was appointed in service. During the said period the petitioner was not involved in any case except the registration of Crime No.194/2003 on 30.12.2003. In that case, the petitioner who was the second accused, was acquitted by Ext.P8 judgment delivered on 20.12.2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has in paragraph 27 of Ext.P8 judgment held as follows: “.... In this case it is pertinent to note that the prosecution WP(C).No.1850/2008 13 case is that the accused 1 and 2 committed the offence in the mid night of 27.12.2003. The dead body was exhumed from the compound of the house on 31.12.2003. Hence the absence of accused No.2 in the office on 31.12.2003 onwards cannot be considered as a circumstance to connect the accused No.2 with the offence alleged to have been committed on 27.12.2003. There is also no material before Court to show that the accused No.1 and 2 were present at the place on the relevant date ie., on 27.12.2003. The Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation to ascertain the presence of accused No.1 and 2 at the place on the date of incident.” The learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to hold as follows: “..... In the absence of any convincing evidence either direct or circumstantial to establish the offence charged against the accused I find the accused 1 and 2 not guilty of the offence charged against them. The accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/s.302, 342,201 r/w S.34 of I.P.C. and they are entitled to acquittal.” The said judgment has become final. It is evident from the observations in the said judgment that the petitioner was not even present at the scene of the crime which was committed on 27.12.2003, at a point of time when he was on duty at Palghat. In my opinion, the long and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in initiating action against the petitioner on the ground that his character and antecedents are not satisfactory itself vitiates the entire proceedings. The Government have in Ext.P6 held that the petitioner's general character and antecedents are not satisfactory merely for the reason that he was involved in criminal cases. That apart, the Government have not given any reason or referred to any other material based on which the said satisfaction was arrived at. I am WP(C).No.1850/2008 14 therefore of the considered opinion that Ext.P2 memorandum, Ext.P6 Government order and Ext.P7 order removing the petitioner from service cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow the original petition, quash Exts.P2, P6 and P7 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits including seniority and emoluments. The order reinstating the petitioner in service shall be issued within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. Payment of arrears of salary and allowances shall be made within another two months thereafter. If any of the petitioner's juniors in service have been promoted, the petitioner shall also be given promotion with effect from the date on which his immediate junior has been promoted. In that event, he will be entitled to salary and allowances and all other service benefits in the promotion post also. The parties shall bear their respective costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS