IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20174 of 2010 RAUSHAN KUMAR, son of Laxmi Prasad Singh, R/0 village-Itahri, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District- Munger………… Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Secrertary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi 2.The Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi 3.The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, headquarter at New Delhi. 4.The Inspector General, CRPF, Chandigarh (U.T.) 5. The D.I.G.P., GC, CRPF, Pinjore (Haryana) 6. The Commandant, 74, Battalion, CRPF, Bhoop Nagar, Kishtwar (J&K). 7. 2-1/C Commandant, CCD, 74, Bn. Bhoop Nagar, Kishtwar (J&K) 8.The D.I.G., Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 9.The D.I.G., CRPF, Group Centre, Mokamaghat, Patna(Bihar) ………………………………………………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Union of India: Mrs. Kalpana, CGC. ---------- 4. 4.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government counsel. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the office order dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Commandant 74 BN, CRPF, Bhoop Nagar , Kishtwar (J & K) by which the petitioner has been held to be not entitled to any relief and order passed earlier under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules,1965 terminating him from his service has been held to be legal, valid and would stand as such. The petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of constable (GD) and after completion - 2 - of the necessary selection process he was issued joining letter on 2.2.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the services of the C.R.P.F., Group Centre, Muzaffarpur on 20.2.2008. He was then directed to report to the Group Centre Pinjore at Haryana from where he was sent for training to CRPF Centre, Neemach in Madhya Pradesh and lastly after completion of training he was allotted 74 Bn. of CRPF at Kishtwar in the State of Jammu & Kashmir where he joined his duty on 25.4.2009. At the time of joining, the petitioner was directed to fill up his verification roll in the prescribed Form-25 which was duly completed and signed by him, and was sent for verification of his character and antecedents. The petitioner in his verification roll declared that he was not involved in any criminal case nor any such case was pending against him. He had also submitted character certificate to that effect issued by the concerned police station. However, it was reported that the petitioner was named as an accused in Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.65/2004 under Sections 341/323/324/337/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was ultimately declared as absconder in the case and charge sheet dated 31.12.2005 was also - 3 - submitted against him and others showing him as absconder. The authorities thus came to the conclusion that the petitioner had furnished false information and suppressed the fact relating to the criminal case, which was against the warning given at the top of the verification roll at serial Nos. 1 to 3 and that the same would entail removal from service. Accordingly, by order dated 21.7.2009 served upon the petitioner, his services were terminated with effect from 28.8.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.395 of 2010, which was disposed of by order dated 18.2.2010 granting liberty to the petitioner to invite the attention of the Commandant of the Battalion to the fact that he had no information about the pendency of the said case and the petitioner was not aware of the same at the time of his application and then appropriate order may be passed by the Commandant. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another representation and subsequently the impugned order dated 26.8.2010 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the stand that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the said criminal case, - 4 - he being a student at the relevant time was studying outside and, thereafter, he had appeared and qualified in the selection process of constable (GD) of the CRPF and only subsequently he learnt about the said criminal case when he reached his village, upon which he surrendered in the Court below and was released on bail on 26.6.2009. It is also emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 17.8.2009, all the four accused persons have been acquitted on the ground of there being no evidence in the case. It is urged by learned counsel that even the Station House Officer of the Police Station was not aware of the pendency of the said criminal case and accordingly, issued a certificate dated 11.8.2008 stating the aforesaid fact. Thus learned counsel emphasizes the fact that the petitioner not being aware of the criminal case it cannot be held that he had made false declaration regarding his involvement in a criminal case. It is also urged by learned counsel that a lenient view should be taken in the matter considering the case of the petitioner, who has qualified in the service of the C.R.P.F. and has - 5 - also been acquitted in the said criminal case. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the CRPF, on the other hand, submits that the submission of false declaration should be taken as a serious matter, as the same is against the warning given in the CRPF Form 25 and the only consequence of making any false declaration can be the termination of the service of the employee concerned. It is further urged by learned counsel that the stand of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the criminal case filed as early as on 22.4.2004, in which the charge sheet has also been submitted on 31.12.2005, as the case had been lodged in the home village of the petitioner and in the course of four years period before the petitioner submitted his completed Form-25, he must have become aware of the pendency of the criminal case and he has deliberately suppressed the said fact. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the submission of false declaration by a candidate, who qualifies for service, has been treated to be a serious matter even by the Apex Court as is evident from the decision in the case - 6 - of Kendriya Vidyalala Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav: (2003) 3 SCC 437, in paragraph No.12 of which it has been held as follows: “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 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 - 7 - 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 teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable - 8 - age. The appellant having considered all the aspects 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 clear terms kept the respondent informed that the - 9 - 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 way, 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. - 10 - I have considered the materials on the record and the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. Evidently, the criminal case was lodged on 22.4.2004 almost four years prior to the declaration submitted by the petitioner in the year 2008. A copy of the case diary has also been produced before this Court from which it appears that during the course of the investigation raids were conducted several times at the village home of the petitioner for arresting him but could not succeed, as the petitioner was absconding. It is further clear from the same that the petitioner was proclaimed as absconder and the attachment of his property was also ordered and made under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not the case of the petitioner that none of his relatives was residing in his village home during the period. The petitioner himself claims to have gone to his village home in the year 2009 when he allegedly learnt about the said criminal case. It is evident that for a period of four years from 20.4.2004 when the case was lodged, the petitioner could not remain unaware of the said criminal case merely because, as submitted by his counsel, no action was taken - 11 - by the petitioner when the order for attachment of his property under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to believe the claim of the petitioner that he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case. As a matter of fact the same being an issue of fact, it was for the petitioner to have produced the relevant conclusive materials before the Commandant, CRPF when the matter was remanded to him by the orders of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by him. The petitioner having failed to satisfy the authorities on this point, this Court does not find any reason to hold otherwise. Once it is held that the petitioner has made a false declaration before the authorities as regards the pendency of the criminal case against him then, as indicated in Form-25, the termination of the service of the petitioner on the ground of making such false declaration would follow as a natural consequence. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan (supra) that giving a false information and suppression of facts has clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the person in relation to his - 12 - continuance in service. The Apex Court has also not given any weight to the fact that the criminal proceeding is ultimately concluded in favour of the petitioner, as in the present case, since the purpose of seeking information is not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of the criminal case ultimately but only with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the person concerned to continue in service or not. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )