A-P^ " 's^^A^^^^^^'S 2.. (/• °7 Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Writ Pstition (S) No. 1623 of2007 Ram Chandra Sahu itate of Chhattisgarh & Others 'L Post forj, -04-2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTISGARH: B1LASPUR Singie Bench : Hon'bieShri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Writ Petition IS} No. 1623 of 2007 Ram Chandra Sahu, S/o Jamuna Prasad Sahu, Aged about 33 years, Residence of Viiiage Ranai, Thana Patna, Ta'nsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (CG). Versus 2. 3, 4 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Director General of Police, Poiice Head Quarter, Raipur (CG). Snspector General of Poiice, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (CG). Prasent:- Shri Mahendra Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panei Lawyer forthe State/respondents. 7J~. LDeiivered_on.3~'ABriL_2007j 1 ?y this petition filed under Article 226 of the Const'tution of india, the petitioner impugns the ietter datsd 25-4-2006 aiongwith letter dated 4-4-2006 (both ietters marked as Annexure-P/1) whereunder the selection of the taff petitioner to She post of Constabie (GD) vvas cancelled on the ground that he has deiiberately conceaied the fact of pendency of a criminal case against him in the attestation form, which was fiSed after due seiection. 2 2) The indisputable facts in nutshe!! are that the petitioner alongwith others made an appiication, pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-3-2005 (Annexure-P/2), for appointment to the post of Constabie (GD). The prescribed proforma of the appfication form (Annexure-P/3) required following information in coiumns 15and 16 : Have you ever been if, yes, give Is: 16. Have you ever been prosecuted In any case. Have you ever been convicted by any Court, if, yes, give fuli details : in the aforesaid columns, the petitioner put the cross (x) ms.rks. After having been se!ected in the written test and phystea! test as per the selection dated 20-6-2005 (Annexure-P/4) the petitioner was rsquired to fill up the attesSation form. !n the attestation form (Annexure-P/5) there *,vas a specific coiurnn i.e. column 12, which reads as under: "f^ "(123 A. Have you ever been arrested. Have you ever been prosecuted. Have you ever been summoned. Have you ever paid penalty. Have you ever been convicted by a Court (or) Have you ever been declined to appear in any examination or expelled from the University/ educationa! insfitution. Whether at the time of fiiling up the attestation form any case is pending in the Court, University or educationa! institutjon. !f your answer in both cases of (A) or (B) is yes, give complete details of the pending case, arrest, ban, conviction, penalty, ete. and details of the pehding case in the Court, University or educationai institution. In the aforesaid columns, ths petitioner has>>stated "no". Thereafter, accordlng to the petitioner, at the advise of his wel! wishers, by letter dated 12-9-2005 (Annexure-P/7) he corrected his mistakes and submitted the complete detaiis of pendency of crimina! case undsr Section 498-A ofthe Indian Pena! Code {for short "the !PC") in the Court of Chief Judicia] Maaistrats, 3 Saikunthpur, District Korea. The respondents vide impugned ietters dated 25-4-2006 and 4-4-2006 (Annexure-P/1) canceiled his selection informing that he had not given the details of crimina! case registered against him in column 12 ofthe attestation form, which tantamounts to suppression of materia! facts. 3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned letters, the petitioner has fi'ed this petition on the ground that he immediateiy vide letter dated 12-9- 2005 (Annexurs-P/7) submitted the correct facts of pendency of the crimina! case durina the filiing UD of the attestation form thus this is not a case of suprresto veri and suggetio faisi . 4) Shri Mahendra Dubey, iearned counse! appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that since the petitioner has informed the authorities immediateiy by letter dated 12-9-2005 about the correct facts of the pendency of the criminal case, this does not amount to misconduct as to disqua'ify the petitioner from being seiected in the Police foree as Constabte. Secondly the offence ynder Section 498-A of the IPC has been cornpounded vide order dated 7-10-2005 (Annexure-P/6) passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.2043/2005 (Ramchand iahu & Others vs. State of Chhattlsgarh & Another) and ihe husband and wife are living peaeefuily. Learned counsei reiies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Poiice, Delhi and another vs. Dhavai Sjngh , in support of his contention. 5) Shri An/ind Dubey, learned counsei appearing for ths State, per contra, would submit that this is not a case of voluntary disclosure of facts. The petitioner himself has committed this mistake not once in the attestation form, but also in the application form. The intention of the petitioner is very clear from the facts that he had deiiberately conceaied the facts while making the application in the prescribed proforma and next time in the attestation form ^ wherein there was a specific requirement of stating the fact as to whether any criminal case was pending or not. 6) The petitioner further admits in his petition that vide letter dated 12-9-2005, he informed the authorities about the correct facts at the advise of his well Vflshers, not on his own voluntarily. 7) Having heard learned counsei for the parties and psrused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner did not fi!! up the application form correctiy and concealed the fact of pendency of a crimlna! case by putting cross ('x) marks in columns 15 and 16 and further after selection In the attestation form also the petitioner had boldly stated "no", in response to query that whether any crimina! case was pending in any Court or not. The petitioner submitted the facts correctiy, later on, at the advic.e of his well wishers by sending a-1etter dated 12-9-2005 aboutthree months from the date of filiinj up the attestation form on 24-6-2005 stating the facts of pendency of criminai case at the time of making an aDpiication and at the time of fiiling up of the attestatlon form. The concealment of facts would resuit into canceliation of his seiection. 8) So far as retiance of the petitioner in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi (supra) is concerned, ths facts involved therein were entireiy diferent. In that case the omission in the appiication form about the pendency of the criminal case was voiuntarily conveyed within a period of three months. !n the present case the petitioner has not conveyed the tetter dated 12-9-2005 voiuntan'ly, but at fhe instance of his friends and wei! wishers. He omitted to mention about the pendency of crimina! case not only in the attestation Torm, but aiso in the application form. It appears to be a case of suprres.io veri and suggetto falsi. 9) In the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of suppression of facts in Customs Act observed that the suppression of facts envisages a deliberate or conscious omission to state a fact with the intention of deriving wrongful gain. 10) In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav , the Supreme Court, in the identscai facts of the case, he!d as under: 12. The obiect of reauiring information in coiumns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certjfication thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verity the character and antecsdents to judge 'nis suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material informatlon and/or giving faise information cannot ciaim right to continue in sewice. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discrstion to terminate his services, which is made expressly ciear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per coiumns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity oi the offence or the resuK of a criminal case uitimately. The information in the sak! 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 thls aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saylng that the criminat case had been subsequently wlthdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent v/as alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature......" 11) !n the case of Secy., Dept of Home Secy., A.P. and others vs Chinnam Naidu , referring the case of Kendrsya Vidyaiaya San{ (supra) the Supreme Court heid as under: (* "As is noted in Kendiiya Vidyalaya Sangathan case the object of requiring ihformation in various coiumns !ike column 12 of the attestation form and deciaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify (1997)108cc538 (2003) 3 SCC 437 (2005) 2 SCC 746 6 the character and antscedents to judge his suitability to enter Into or continue in service. When a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives fa!se .information, he cannot claim any rightfor appointment or continuance in service. There can be no dispute to this position in law." 12) Applying to the well settied principles of !aw as laid down by Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is not a case where the petitioner has voluntarily supplied the information of the fact with regard to pendency of the criminal case by subsequent letter dated 12-9-2005. In the present case the petitioner has deiiberately conceaied the facts as he has made omission in the application form as well as in the attestation form. Thus, this is a case of suprresio veri and suggetso falss. As such the petitioner is not entit!ed to appointment/continuation in service. 13) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned letters dated 25-4-2006 and 4-4-2006 (Annexure-P./l) are just and proper and need no inferference. The oetition is accordinflly dismsssed. No order as to costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge