IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20071 of 2010 NIRAJ KUMAR, son of Sri Vijay Singh, resident of village- Kormathu, P.O. Kormathu, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya…… Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Inspector General, Central Industrial SecurityForce, CISF, N.S. HQRS, Saket, Post Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs)CISF NS HQRS, Saket, Post Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force ( Ministry of Home Affairs), CISF. EZ HQRS, Patliputra, Boring Road, Patna-13 (Bihar) 4. The Assistant Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone, HQRS, Patliputra, Boring Road, Patna-13. 5. The Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) CISF. GP HQRS,Saket, New Delhi-17……. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. T.N. Maitin, Senior Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Raghib Ahsan,Assistant Solicitor General --------- 3. 14.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 27.2.2009 issued by the Group Commandant, CISF GP HQRS, Saket, New Delhi, by which the service of the petitioner as Constable/GD CISF has been terminated and further for quashing the order dated 11.6.2009 passed by the I.G., CISF NS HQRS, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination has been rejected. The petitioner was appointed by letter dated 3.8.2006 as Constable/GD in the Central - 2 - Industrial Security Force and joined his service on 2.9.2006 and after completion of basic training he had been posted at CISF Unit DISTCOM, New Delhi. Before joining his post, he was required to fill up Attestation Form which he did on 26.8.2006. The said Attestation Form contained the questions as to whether he had been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention. The petitioner gave his reply against all the three questions. In the Attestation Form every query and other matters were described both in Hindi and in English. The said Form also provides the candidate to certify that the information given therein was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief and he was not aware of any circumstances which might impair his fitness for employment under the Government. The same was duly certified by the petitioner, who signed immediately under the said certification. At the very beginning of the Attestation Form it was mentioned that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the - 3 - Government. It was further provided that if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. Subsequently on verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Gaya, the District Magistrate by his letter dated 28.11.2008 intimated that two criminal cases being Belaganj P.S. Case No.66/2003 dated 24.6.2003 under Sections 448, 341, 380, 435, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Belaganj P.S. Case No.89/2003 dated 15.9.2003 under Sections 341, 325, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code were pending against the petitioner. It was thus found that he has suppressed this fact in paragraph No. 12 (a) (b) and (c) of the Attestation Form. On a consideration of the same by the impugned order dated 27.2.2009, the Group Commandant GD Headquarter, Saket, New Delhi terminated the service of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Inspector General, CISF,NS HQRS, - 4 - Saket, New Delhi, who by the impugned order dated 11.6.2009 rejected the appeal as being devoid of any merit. The petitioner has, thus, come to this Court against the said two orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27.2.2009 is vague and does not mention what false/incorrect information has been furnished by the petitioner in his Attestation Form and thus serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in taking his stand. It is also stated that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 27.2.2009 and thus the same is in violation of the principle of natural justice. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sridhar vs. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others.: 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 157, in paragraph No.8 of which it has been held as follows:- “8. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the order of the government dated - 5 - February 13, 1980 in setting aside the appellant‟s appointment without giving any notice or opportunity to him. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner‟s order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant therefore the order was illegal and void. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the Commissioner‟s order setting - 6 - aside the appellant‟s appointment. In this view, orders of the High Court and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law.” He further relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University & ors.: 1999(1) PLJR 30 (SC). The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provision in the Attestation Form can at best be considered as directory and certainly not mandatory and thus the harsh punishment of termination of service ought not to have been passed. It is urged that it is a question of livelihood of the petitioner and for a mere furnishing of incorrect information in the Attestation Form, the petitioner ought not to have been met with such a punishment having serious consequences. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the criminal cases, which were intra family disputes. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, submits that the case of the petitioner relates to suppression of material - 7 - information relating to character and antecedents for which the said Attestation Form provides for the punishment of termination of service rendering the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. It is further submitted that the mere acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases cannot lessen the gravity of the action of the petitioner in furnishing a false information regarding his character and antecedents. The very purpose of seeking information in the said Attestation Form is to arrive at a judgment regarding the character and antecedents of the candidate to continue in service or not. It is urged that the petitioner having suppressed material information and given false information has no right to continue in service. It is also urged by learned counsel that the petitioner was a mere probationer and since his services were never confirmed, which is an essential pre-condition under Rule 25 of the CISF Rules,2001, there was no requirement of holding any enquiry or giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 27.2.2009 is not a show cause - 8 - which the petitioner was required to answer, rather it is the order of termination passed in due exercise of power, for which the authority is competent. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was, at all times, fully aware of the reasons which had led to his termination and no prejudice has been caused to him at all and he has raised all the necessary pleas before the appellate authority and even before this Court, which clearly go to show that the plea regarding vagueness, etc. has only been taken as a technical plea without showing any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner. In support of his stand, learned Assistant Solicitor General relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav : (2003) 3 SCC 437, in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of which it has been held as follows:- ”11. It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 IPC was pending on - 9 - the date when the respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the respondent as against columns 12 and 13 as “No” is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the respondent is holder of BA, BEd and MEd degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent 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 columns 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain - 10 - English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken the help 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 the respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. It is not the case that columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said “No” as against columns 12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were not material. The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of - 11 - 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 this 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 the discretion to terminate his services, which - 12 - is made expressly clear in para 9 of 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 failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedents of a - 13 - teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspect passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in - 14 - clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.” - 15 - Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others vs. Sushil Kumar: (1996) 11 SCC 605, in paragraph No.3 of which it has been held as follows: “3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 6.9.1995 in OA No.1756 of 1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with Roll No.65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found - 16 - that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated 18.12.1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It - 17 - is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the - 18 - criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service”. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, I find sufficient force in the submissions of learned Assistant Solicitor General. It is evident that the petitioner had given false statement in the Attestation Form to - 19 - his knowledge and belief. The submission of learned counsel is that had the petitioner been given proper opportunity, he could have explained that his reply in “Yes” or “No” is a mere slip and he did not intend to furnish false information or suppression of any factual information in view of the fact which the Attestation Form clearly lays down that in case the answer to any of the above mentioned question is „Yes‟ then give full particulars of the case/ arrest/ detention/ fine/ conviction/ sentence/punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority, etc. are to be given at the time of filling up the Attestation Form. No such details are found anywhere in the Form and thus the said plea is a mere after thought and giving of wrong answer was a deliberate attempt of the petitioner to mislead the authorities with regard to his character and antecedents. As held by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases that ultimately the result of the said case of acquittal can have no consequence as the factual information regarding character and antecedent was to be given by the candidate at the time he is to be taken into - 20 - service. The involvement of a candidate in the criminal case definitely has a substantial effect on his character and antecedent and his deliberate suppression would certainly expose the said candidate to the consequences as are mentioned in the Attestation Form itself, namely, termination of service. It has been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions that a probationer has no right to be heard before his service is terminated. If there are materials before the authorities on the basis of which it is found that he is unfit to be retained in service, then it is open to them not to confirm his service and terminate the same. In the present matter, the act of the petitioner is a deliberate attempt at furnishing false information or suppression of factual information in the Attestation Form and thus the termination of his service by the impugned order cannot be held to be unjustified. It is also evident from the materials on the record that although the order dated 27.2.2009 did not satisfy the exact false/incorrect information furnished by the petitioner but the petitioner was well aware of the same at the time - 21 - of filing of his appeal and thus, he was not at all prejudiced by the same. The said order itself cannot be held to be illegal on the said ground as it is not a show cause which the petitioner had to answer and its vagueness would have prevented him from filing proper reply to show cause. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )