.^-^^^.^^s^,^^^. CFOtl60164160 AMENDED WRIT PETITION TH^JIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0. 5912 OF 2005 PETITIONER Nagendra Pratap Singh, aged about 23 years, S/o Shri Tahsildar Singh, R/o-PostTyodhary, P.S. Amarpatan, District Satana (M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary-Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, 110001 2. The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection force, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5912 of 2005 AFI{ Petitioner Respoxidents Nagendra Pratap Singh Versus- Union oflndia and aaother ^, Post for order on if- Januaiy, 2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^BiyLSPUR Writ Petition No. 5912 of 2005 Petitioner Respondents Nagendra Pratap Sio.gh Versus- Union oflndia aad another Mr. Raje.sh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent No. 1. Miss Yoshita Masih, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDBR (Passed on Lf- Day ofJanuaiy, 2007) This order offhe Court is passed by Justtce Satlsh K. Aguiliotri. 1. The present writ petition fUed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ/direction to the rcspondent No. 2 to appoiat the petitiouer on the post of constable and to send him for training under fhe rules. 2. The indisputable facts ia nutsheU are fhat the petitioner was selected for appoiatment on fhe post ofconstable ia fhe Raflway Protection Porce as a General Category caiididate, held in April, 2005. On selection, the petitioner was required to fUl-up duly attestatlon fomi (Annexure P/2). Coliunn No. 12 of fh.e said attestation fonn was fiUedby fhe rcspondent No. 2, as under:- "12. (i) (a) Have you ever been arrested ? Yes/No-No (b) Have you ever been prosecute ? Yes/No-No (c) Have you ever been kept under detention ? Yes/No-No (d) Have you ever been bound down ? Yes/No-No (e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of law ? Yes/No-No (g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution ? Yes/No-No (h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any Railway or Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/ selection ? Yes/No-No (i) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this Attestation form ? Yes/No-No (j) Is any case pending against you in any University or any other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation FoiTn ? Yes/No-No If the answer to any of the abovementioned question is Tes< give full particulars ofthe case/arrest/detention/ fine/conviction/sentence/punishment ete. and or the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/ Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling up this fomi." The petitioner fhereafter subinitted a letter as suppleiaentaiy fomi on 25.8.2005 (Annexure P/7) raakiag corrections ia Colunui 12 (i) (a) of fhe Attestation fomi to fhe effect fhat the ^titiouer was arrcsted and he was prosecuted ia two crunuial cases. In one case prosecution was for offences zinder Sections 395, 397, 436, 120-B aiid 427 of fhe Indiaa Penal Code. In fhe second case, the petitioner \vas prosecuted for offences punishable luider Sections 147, 145, 149, 302, 294, 436, 120-B and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted in bofh the said criiaiaal cases by fhe judgiaents and oiders dated 25.8.2003 (Annexm'e P/5) and 29.8.2003 (Annexure P/6). 3. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 2. 11.2005 (Annexiire P/3) asto why the appomtoaient of fhe petitioner be iiot caaceUed on accx>iint of fhe fact fhat fhe petitioner had deliberately fBled up column No, 12 of the attestation form wrongly by stating that he was never arrested nor prosecuted. The petitioaer was prosecuted which resiilted iato acquittal. The petitioner submitted his repty on 3.11.2005 (Annexure P/4) stating fhat fhe petitioner did not kaow EngUsh aad he had not given the informatioa with any ulterior niotive, The petitioner fhought fhat he has been acquitted from all the charges aiid infomiation was given accordingly. However, the con-ect infomiation was sent iminediately oa 25.8.2005. 4. Mr. Rakesh Paadey, learaed coziiisel appearing for fhe petitioner would submit that fhis is aot a case of suprf'esio veri and suggetiofalsi as the petitioner had realteed his mistake an^d subiaitted the application uninediately, correctmg fhe mistake/en'or on 25.8.2005. It was further contended fhat fhe petitioner had not attexapted to seek eixiploynient on the post on makmg false statenient, Much before fhe date ofselectiou, fhe petitioaer was acquitted froin aH crimmal chax^es by fhe judgaients aad orders dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure P/5) and 29.8.<^)03 (Annexure P/6). Leamed counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in the facts and circumstaiices ofthe case fhe petitioner be granted relief of appomtaient on the post of constable as fhe petitioner has been found siiitable on Dierit. 5. Despite service of notice, uone appears for fhe respondent No. 1. 6. Miss Yoshita Masih, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, per contea, would submit fhat the petitioner was not sent for traiaiag on the ground that fhe petitioner had concealed certain facts wifh regard to his arrest and 8. prosecution earlier. It was clearly stated ia the attestation form that statmg false information in fhe attestation fonn would eatifle disquaUfication for eniployiaent. The petitioxier was arrested aad prosecuted for crimiaal charges which rcsulted into acquittal, but the fact reiaains fhat the petitioner was arrested and prosecuted ia fhe past, which fhe petitioner concealed deUberately. The niodification/amendiaeut niade subsequentiy would not chan.ge fhe nature aiid the petitioner stands disquaUfied for appoiataient on fhe post of constable, which is fhe sensitive aad disciplmed post. I have heaid leamed cozinsel for the parties, perused the pleadiags aad doczinients appended fhereto. It is evident fhat the petitioner had uiade false statenient ia fhe attestation fomi subniitted on 17.8.2€X)5.The said ndstake was attenipted to be corrected by the letter dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure P/7) statmg fhat fhe petitioner ignoranfly did not state.fhe fact ofhis arrest aad prosecution earlier. The petitioner was acquitted froni atl criininal charges niuch before April, 2005 by fhe judgnients and oiders dated 25.8.2003 (Annexurc P/5) and 29.8.2003 AuBiexure P/6). The Supreme Court in fhe case of €?ommissioxier of PoUce, Delhi and another Vs. Dhaval Sin^ti1, while considermg the identical facts, whereia the petitioner did not inform about pendeiicy of cruniaal case in. fhe attestation form in August 1995, but on 15-11-1995, he voluntarily ioforDied fhe authorily conceraed about pendeacy ofcrixojiial case, it was held that fhe nifomiation was conveyed vohintarily which was acquitted before passiag fhe order of canceUation of candidatiirc. The ^ 10. 11. caaceUatioa of fhe caadidature iinder fhe circiiinstances was withoiit any proper appUcation of miad aad without takiag iato consideration aU relevant niaterial. In fhe case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Rataxi Yadsw2, fhe Supreme Court held tfiat fhe object of rcquinng infonnation in. fhe attestation fonxi aad certification fhereafter by fhe caadidate was to ascertain aad venfy the character and aatecedents of fhe respondent as on fhe date of faUing aad attestation of ftie form to judge his suitability to contmue ui seryice. Suppression of niaterial information and makmg a false statenient has a clear bearmg ou fhe character and aatecedents of the respondent ia relation to his continuance m service. This was a case where the candidate has not iiifoniied the aufhorily voluntarily removiag the error committed by the candidate in the attestation form. The Supreme Court m the case of B.R. Chowdhury Vs» Indiaa 011 C!orpn. Ltd. and others3 relying on fhe decision of fhe Supreme Court ia fhe case of Commissioner of PoUce, Delhi and anofher Vs. Dhaval Siagh (Supra) held fhat fhe caadidate is bound by his own affidavit aad flie nientioned nieDioraaduia of ^greenient. This was also uot a case where the candidate voluntarity mformed fhe authonties curing fhe error committed ia fhe attestation form. In fhe case of Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A. P. aad others Vs, B. Chiaaam Naidu4, fhe facts of fhe case are different aad are not appUcable to fhe facts offhe present case. In fhat case, fhe candidate had not infonned to fhe aufhorities voluntarily about fhe correct factual position immediately. 6 Bablu 12. The facts of fhe cases in Kendrya Vidyalaya Saagathaa and ofhers Vs. Ram Rataa Yadav and Secy., Deptt. ofHome Secy., A. P. aad ofhers Vs. B. Chinaam Naidu (Supra) are differcat. The facts of the present case are identical to fhat of Coxnmissioner of Police, Delhi aiid aaofher Vs. Dhaval Siagh (Supra). 13. After filling the attestation form on 17.8.2005, the petitioner has voluntarily modified fhe information, as stated m column No. 12, in his letter dated 25.8.2005. The voluntarily szibmission of siipplementaxy letter dated 25,8.2005 to fhe attestation form dated 17.8.2005, it appears was not considered by the aufhorities before issumg fhe show-cause notice dated 2.11.2005. The conduct of the petitioner by submitting the letter immediately wiftun a period of 7 days to fhe authorities making necessaiy aniendments ia column No. 12 is not a case of suprresio veri and suggetiofalsi aad as such the saixie woiild not amount to doubtful integrily aad character, as is the puipose offhe attestation form. 14. For the reasons-stated heremabove, tlie writ ^titioa is attowed aad fhe respoiident No. 2 is directed to consider fhe case offhe petitioner for appomtment on fhe post ofconstable, pursuaat to his selection, held m Apnl, 2005. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1. {(1999)1 SCC246} 2. ^2003) 3 SCC 437} 3. {(2004) 2 SCC 177} 4, ^[2005) 2 SCC 746}