High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anvada Singh v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 24028 of 1997  RD-AH 20090 (28 November 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24028 of 1997
Anvada Singh Vs.. Union of India & others
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.
The petitioner after passing the High School Examination from the U.P. Board participated in the recruitment process for the post of Sepoy in Border Road Task Force and was initially recruited as pioneer Sepoy on 15th July, 1995. He, before joining the services was required to furnish declaration in the prescribed form. The said declaration in the prescribed form was submitted on 17th August, 1995. It was verified by him. It appears that subsequently on an information being received, the proceedings for furnishing a false declaration form was initiated against the petitioner. Ultimately, a notice of termination of services under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rule 1965 was given to the petitioner to the effect that his services shall stand terminated from the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date on which the notice is served on him vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Challenging the aforesaid termination order the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter affidavit a number of pleas have been raised. Along with the counter affidavit a photo stat copy of the declaration form verified by the petitioner on 17th August, 1995 has been filed as Annexure- 4 to the counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition has submitted two points. Firstly, the petitioner was not governed by the provisions of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rule 1965 and was governed by the Army Act and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Secondly, the respondents were aware of the true state of affairs as the complaints were sent by third persons against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can not be held guilty of concealment of material fact. It was also argued that ultimately the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal cases under which he was charged. In contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the face of declaration furnished by the petitioner and verified by him it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of filing a false declaration, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. It was also stated that the service conditions of the petitioner is not governed by the provisions of Army Act.
I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
A true copy of the appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. It is dated 17th August, 1995. Condition no. 5 of the said appointment letter clearly stipulates that the appointee will be governed by the provisions of Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. Notwithstanding this for the purpose of discipline only the appointee will also be subject to certain provisions of Army Act 1950 and Army Rules 1954 made there under and it will be open to the appropriate disciplinary authority under the Army Act 1950 to proceed under those provisions, where ever it considers expedient and necessary to do so. In the face of the aforesaid stipulation in the appointment letter it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that since the proceedings were not initiated under the Army Act and Army Rule 5 of 1954, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The notice for termination was rightly given under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rule 1965. Apart from the above this plea was not raised in the writ petition as accepted by the petitioner's counsel. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this is a question of law it can be raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition itself. Be that as it may, the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has no merit and is, therefore, rejected.
Now I take up the second point raised by the petitioner. A true copy of the declaration form has been annexed as C A 4 to the counter affidavit. The said declaration form is dated 17th August, 1995. Column 15 of the said declaration form deals with the particulars of previous conviction, if any. It requires to give particulars of cases, detention time and conviction. A summary of such criminal cases, detention etc. is require to be furnished under the aforesaid column. The petitioner has written ''No' under the aforesaid column. The petitioner was supplied the attestation form at the time of interview. The character verification of roll filled in and signed by the petitioner on 17th August, 1995 was sent for police verification to the District Magistrate, Firozabad. The police after verification, submitted a report that the petitioner was booked under Section 304, 323 and 336 I.P.C. and was arrested/ detained in the police custody on 9th July, 1995 and the matter is pending for adjudication before the Court. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondents to terminate the services basically on the ground that the declaration furnished by the petitioner on 17th August, 1995 was factually incorrect. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that ultimately the petitioner has not been found guilty by the Criminal Court and has been acquitted. Elaborating the argument he submitted that in view of subsequent event and fact that the petitioner was successful in the recruitment process the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 304, 323 and 3360 I.P.C. was pending on the date when the petitioner filled and filed the roll form on 17.8.1995. Hence the information given by the petitioner as against column 15 as "No" is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 is an authority of the Apex Court, on more or less on identical facts, wherein it has been laid down that where a person in attestation form has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, and if the said information is ultimately found to be incorrect, the order of termination is valid. It has been held that the requirement of filling up the columns of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the candidate on the date of filing of the attestation form and suppression of material information and making false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondents in relation to his continuance in serviced. A candidate having suppressed the material information and or giving false information can not claim a right to continue in service. The purpose of seeking information regarding character and antecedents of a candidate should be looked from the point of view of the employer.
The relevant portion is extracted below :-
"The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of 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 his continuance in service............
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."
In the case in hand the petitioner was appointed as Sepoy in Border Road Task Force and it was essential for the respondents to have the information with regard to the character and antecedents of the petitioner which has material bearing on the nature of duties to be performed by him.
The aforesaid decision given in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan has been followed in A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others (2005) 7 SCC 177. In para 7 of the report it has been held that to the purpose for which information is called for, the employer is the ultimate Judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in the judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. In this view of the matter even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that ultimately the petitioner has been discharged from the criminal case, the fact remains that on the day i.e. 17th August, 1995, when he furnished the information it was incorrect on the face of it.
In view of above authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.