THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.585 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of the orders passed on 14-07-2009 by the 1st respondent Commandant terminating the services of the writ petitioner, a general duty Mahila Constable attached to the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Force’), which order was confirmed by the Inspector General of the Force through his orders dated 30-09-2009. The writ petitioner, upon recruitment as a Mahila Constable, was enlisted with the Force. After completing the training period between 01-10-2007 and 09-05-2008, she was posted to the security duties at the Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, where she joined on 14-05-2008. At that stage, the Commandant passed orders under Sub- Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short ‘the Rules’), terminating the services of the writ petitioner with immediate effect subject to payment of the salary and allowances in lieu of the notice period. The reason for this adverse action against the petitioner is traced to the finding that the writ petitioner was involved in a criminal case prior to her selection as a Mahila Constable, which information has been held back by her while submitting her application for recruitment as such. It is stated that when antecedents of the writ petitioner were verified from the District Magistrate, Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh, the Force was intimated that a case in Crime No.492A/2001 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was pending against her. In view of the suppression of this material fact, the impugned order came to be passed by the Commandant, which was confirmed by the Inspector General of the Force. It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that no notice was issued or any opportunity was afforded by the Commandant to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, as is required under Sub- Rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules. Further, the writ petitioner was not completely aware of the implications arising out of the criminal case, which was said to be pending against her at the time when she applied for recruitment as a Mahila Constable. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further submit that, ultimately, the criminal case ended in acquittal and unjustly, the petitioner has been penalized by termination of her services. Further, the learned counsel would submit that non-furnishing information about involvement in a criminal case need not necessarily result in automatic termination of the probation of the individual and the circumstances both antecedent and subsequent have got to be viewed in a proper perspective. Further, young and inexperienced individuals may not have noticed the significance of furnishing the information relating to their involvement, particularly, either because of the young age and inexperience or because of the inherent lack of tenability of the allegation and the usual practice of implicating even unconnected individuals in criminal cases like in the instant case. Per contra, Sri Ramanujam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would urge that the Force is an Armed Force of the Union and it requires men of high integrity to be enrolled with it. He, further, submits that suppression of information by any applicant, who sought for enrollment with the Force, automatically, disqualifies such individual for consideration. The selections were finalized and the selected candidates were subjected to the training schedule of the Force, pending verification of their antecedents. The antecedents verification was consuming enormous time and hence, instead of keeping the selected candidates waiting and guessing, all the selected candidates were subjected to the training and subsequent joining the Force, subject to the receipt of the antecedents report. When once it has come to the notice of the Force that vital information has been held back by the selected candidate, there is no alternative except to discharge such an individual by an order of termination simplicitor. Sri Ramanujam would further contend that the impugned order has not caused any stigma on the petitioner and it is a case of simple discharge from service. Further, the rule itself provided for payment of salary and allowance in lieu of the notice period of one month, which is what has been ordered to be paid by the Commandant in his order dated 14-07-2009. The learned Standing Counsel would further urge that the criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner some time in the year 2001 itself and she has, in fact, surrendered along with the other accused in connection with the said crime before the learned Magistrate on 06- 11-2001 and hence, as of 22-11-2007, the date on which the writ petitioner has submitted her application, she is thoroughly in the know of the fact that she was involved in a criminal case and that she has surrendered before the criminal court. Therefore, this information has been deliberately held back by the writ petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the writ petitioner was, in fact, acquitted only on 18-08-2009, which is subsequent to the orders passed by the Commandant of the Force. In other words, as at the time when the Commandant of the Force has passed the order of discharge of the petitioner from service, the criminal case was still pending and was not decided. Along with the counter affidavit sworn to by the Commandant of the Force, a set of material papers has been enclosed by the respondents. Ex.R-4 at page 7 thereof is the attestation form, which was submitted by the petitioner on 22-11-2007. It was filled by the petitioner in her own hand. It will be appropriate to notice that this attestation form, which is supplied by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has been printed in both Hindi followed up by English language. At the top of this attestation form, it was noted as under: Warning Paragraph 3 thereof reads as follows: “ 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 the notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.” At column No.7, the date of birth of the petitioner was noted as 10-07-1986. Obviously, the petitioner was only around 15 years of age when the alleged criminal case was booked against her. At Page No.5 of this attestation form, several questions have been asked to be answered by the candidates. Some of these relevant questions are: (a) Have you ever been arrested ? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted ? (c) Have you ever been kept under detention ? (d) Have you ever been bound down ? (e) Have you ever been fined by Court of Law ? (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law for any offence ? (g) Have ever been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/institution? (h) Have you ever been debarred / disqualified by any Public Service Commission for any of its examinations / selections ? (i) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at the time of filling up this Attestation Form ? (j) Is any case pending against you in any University or any other Educational Authority / Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation Form ? (k) Whether discharged / expelled / withdrawn from any Training Institution under the Government or otherwise ? After, all these questions, it was noted as under: “ If the answer to any of the abovementioned questions is “yes” 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. at the time of filling up this Form.” The matter did not stop there. A note was immediately appended thereto: “Note (i) reads as follows: Please also see the ‘Warning’ at the top of this Attestation Form.” (ii) Specific answers to each of the questions should be given by striking out ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as the case may be.” The writ petitioner has furnished answers to some of these questions in Hindi by writing “ ” and to some other questions by striking of “yes”, thus leaving “no” as answer. This attestation form was signed by the petitioner on 22-11-2007, by which date she has already completed her Graduation examination also. The Force is constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, an enactment to provide for constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for the better protection and security of the industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government, certain other industrial undertakings and employees of all such undertakings and to provide technical consultancy service to industrial establishments in the private sector. Therefore, the very nature of the job requires from every member of the Force a high sense of integrity and dedication. It is rather unfortunate that the writ petitioner has chosen to fill in the attestation form without paying greater degree of attention and care. The writ petitioner appears to have furnished the answers to the questions, reference to which has been made supra, in a casual manner, as it appears. No serious thought has been spared by her while furnishing the information solicited there. It is appropriate right at this stage to notice that on 22-11-2007, the date on which the attestation form has been filled and filed by her, the writ petitioner was already selected as a Mahila Constable and she has already been drafted for undergoing the training, which commenced on 01-10-2007 at Bedva of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, whatever apprehensions the writ petitioner may have entertained in her mind at the initial stages of filing the application for recruitment, in the matter of furnishing information relating to her involvement in criminal case, the same cannot hold good by the time she was called upon to fill in the attestation form on 22-11-2007 by virtue of her selection, which fructified in her being drafted for undergoing the training as well. Therefore, an inference has to be necessarily drawn against the petitioner that the information solicited from her in the attestation form has been held back purposefully by her. Courts have been viewing the action of aspirants of public employment not furnishing accurate information about their involvement in criminal cases in different and varying perspectives. Relevant facts and circumstances are invariably taken into account and consideration before such conduct is either permitted to pass through or found to be blameworthy. A Division Bench of this Court in A. Sagar v. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad[1], after considering the earlier Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of V.S.S.C. (1998 (Suppl.) SCC 795 and Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh (AIR 1999 SC 2326), held that the petitioner in that case cannot be held to have willfully suppressed and concealed the relevant material from the respondent therein and consequently, the order of discharge of the petitioner half-way through his training was set at naught. However, it is important to notice that the Division Bench in Para 27 of its Judgment has noticed that as on the date the petitioner in the said case was submitting his application and attestation form, the criminal cases registered against him have ended in clean acquittal. Therefore, the case cited (1 supra) turned on its facts. Another Division Bench of this Court in K. Prasada Rao v. Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Giddalur Sub-Division[2], after having noticed the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in Matadeen Garg v. State of Rajasthan (C.A.No. 15234/1988) had come to the conclusion that suppression of information in the attestation form about involvement in a criminal case is liable to be held against such an applicant. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to a Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on 17-03-2011 in Civil Appeal No.1430 of 2007, where the Supreme Court has pointed out that the Court was required to display the same wisdom as was displaced by Lord Denning while dealing with the case in Morris v. Crown Office [3]. It is apt to notice that the Supreme Court has pointed out in the course of this Judgment that at an young age people tend to commit indiscretions and such indiscretions deserve to be dealt with lightly and to be condoned. It was also pointed out that young individuals would seldom behave with the same sense of maturity, as the elder lot would have. But however, the fact remains that the learned Judges in this case have noticed that the offence lodged against the respondent therein was not a serious offence and hence, a lenient view should have been taken. Now, in this regard, the question that is required to be answered is whether a lenient view deserves to be taken in the case of the writ petitioner. As was noticed, the writ petitioner was said to have involved in Crime No.492A/2001 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was hardly in doubt that the writ petitioner was about 15 years of age by that time. A person of such young age could have been truly guilty of committing an offence is a debatable aspect. But, the fact remains that the information relating thereto has been held back by the petitioner after her selection and recruitment to the Force, while filing the attestation forms on 22.11.2007. The Force is an Armed Force of the Union. Therefore, it is hardly in doubt that high degree of integrity and honesty is required to be maintained and expected of the members of the Force at all times. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the criminal case was pending even at that time against her when the impugned order was passed. It ended up only on 18-08-2009. Therefore, keeping the special and specific interests of the Armed Forces in view, I am not in a position to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that even in the present case, a lenient view deserves to be taken in the matter. I, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Commandant of the Force in terminating the services of the writ petitioner simplicitor for the suppression of facts indulged in by her. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 22nd June 2011 Mrk [1] (2003) 1 ALD 380 [2] 2003 (4) ALD 770 (DB) [3] (1970) 2 Q.B. 114