Equivalent Citations

2014 SCT P&H 3 412 . 2013 SCC ONLINE P&H 22695 .

Manoj Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Union Of India And Others (S)

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Oct 28, 2013)

CASE NO.

Civil Writ Petition No. 23551 of 2013

ADVOCATES

Mr. Rajan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

JUDGES

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

JUDGMENT

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

This is a rather unfortunate case. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Cook in
the Indo- Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and was posted in 9th Battalion, ITBP Force,
Arunachal Pradesh. He joined service on 25.5.2012 He was on probation.
2. He was issued a show cause notice on 2.5.2013 as to why his name be not removed and
his services terminated on the ground of furnishing false information/ withholding
information about the pendency of criminal cases or acquittal in Column No. 12 of the
enrolment form. The respondent ITBP received a character verification report from the
District Magistrate, Mahendergarh, Narnaul dated 28.9.2012 informing ITBP that a case
FIR No. 243 dated 7.8.2007 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366,
376 and 506 IPC in Mahendergarh and was acquitted by the trial court on 26.7.2008 He
filed reply to the show cause notice on 13.7.2013 taking the defence that he was a ‘less
educated person’ and could not comprehend the future import of Column No. 12 on his
appointment since he had long back been acquitted of the charge in the criminal case. He
erred in not mentioning the same in the enrollment form. His reply was considered and the
respondents vide order dated 19.10.2013 removed the petitioner from service in exercise of
power under rule 22 read with rule 17(iv) of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules,
1994. Against the removal order the petitioner has approached this Court through the
present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the same be quashed
and he be ordered to be reinstated in service. Column No. 12 of the enrollment form and
answer given by the petitioner are reproduced below:
“(a) Whether you have been arrested for any offence or a case has been registered against

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 1 of 6

you or you have been kept into custody or you have been released on bail or you have been
fined by any court or the charge has been proved or you have been declared ineligible/
restrained for any sort of examination by any Public Service Commission or any
University of Education Board has deprived of you/turned out from any examination?
(answer was ‘No’)
(b) At the time of filing this verification form whether there is any case going on against
you in any court of University or any Educational Department/Board? If the reply to (a) or
(b) is Yes then give the detail of case, arrest, custody, fine, proving of charge, punishment
etc., and explain that at the time of filing this form what type of case is pending in the
court/University/Education Board (the Reply was ‘No’).
3. The appointment to the post was made on the strength of self declaration of the
employee under the terms and conditions that prescribed that in case of receipt of adverse
report regarding character and previous conduct on background check , the person was
liable to be dismissed or removed from service. In the order of removal passed on
10.9.2013, it has been recorded that the acquittal of the employee was on the basis of
giving the benefit of doubt. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the
strength of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Police v.
Sandeep Kumar; (2011) 4 SCC 644 and the observations therein that young people often
commit indiscretions and judicial approach should be to condone such indiscretions rather
than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. This was also a case of non-
disclosure in the enrolment form of past involvement in a criminal case. The respondent
before the Supreme Court had been appointed as a Head Constable (Ministerial) and did
not disclose in the enrolment form of his involvement in a criminal case registered under
Sections 325/34 IPC when he was aged about 20 years. The Court did not find the offence
under Sections 325/34 IPC as a serious enough offence and, therefore, showed the path of
a more lenient view and that Court should apply a more humanistic test for considering
such a case even though offences involved were somewhat heinous in nature. The appeal
was against the judgment of the Delhi High Court quashing cancellation of candidature.
The view of the Delhi High Court was upheld but from a broader perspective.
4. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, AIR 2013 SC 2861 the Supreme
Court dealt with a situation where an aspirant for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi
police and was provisionally selected but not offered appointment after he was examined
by the Screening Committee following background check and found him unsuitable for
appointment for his involvement in a criminal case although it was compromised between
the parties. He was acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 427 of the
Indian Penal Code. Mehar Singh had disclosed in his declaration form that there was an
FIR registered against him which case was compromised which led to his acquittal. He
was issued notice to show cause why his candidature be not cancelled. In reply he
submitted that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case but was acquitted. Mere
registration did not disclose criminal propensity. The Screening Committee observed that
Mehar Singh had assaulted a bus conductor with an iron chain, belt and stones in a pre-

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 2 of 6

planned manner and caused injuries to him which showed violent nature and scant respect
for the law. Aggrieved, Mehar Singh filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi which was allowed. The cancellation order was set aside. The
Tribunal found a couple of cases in which persons charged with Section 307 IPC were
appointed by the respondent police. The writ petition filed by the police department in the
Delhi High Court failed. In the appeal before the Supreme Court both the orders were
challenged. It was argued that employment in Delhi Police is of a very sensitive nature.
Therefore, character, integrity and antecedents of a candidate aspiring to join it, assumes
importance. Acquittal of a person in a criminal case does entitle him to appointment or
reinstatement as a matter of right. The appointing authority may still find such a person
unfit to be appointed to the post. If some persons with criminal antecedents were appointed
in the past; the doctrine of equality is not attracted to such cases. The Supreme Court
observed in paragraphs 19, 21 and 28 of the report:
19. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee
would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the
police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or
discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be
within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is
based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of
material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening
Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is
likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to
the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and
extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause
for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this
policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its
object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police
force.”
Further, it was observed:
“21… This Court (Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal , (1994) 1 SCC 541) observed that the expressions ‘honourable acquittal’,
‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully exonerated’ are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code
or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define
what is meant by the expression ‘honourably acquitted’. This expressed that when the
accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution case and the prosecution
miserably fails to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that
the accused was honourably acquitted. In light of above, we are of the opinion that since
the purpose of departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious
misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out
of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the
above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 3 of 6

department i.e at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the
person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged
on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable,
the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. Stricter norms need
to be applied while appointing persons in a disciplinary force because public interest is
involved in it.
Still further it was reasoned:
“28. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of
maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and
confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the
police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is
acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to
be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police
force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these
matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be
taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is
tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power
are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has
taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy
of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that
persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same
time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and
must treat all candidates with even hand.
5. In such matters, the cardinal principles evolved have been summarized succinctly by the
Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 748. These are:
“(i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable
at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases
merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years,
on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour
or any estoppel against the employer.
(ii) Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test
whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his
antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a
disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
(iii) When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it
would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would
create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to
termination without holding any inquiry.

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 4 of 6

(iv) A candidate having suppressed material information and/ or giving false information
cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of
employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
(v) Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or
detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the
time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing
on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
(vi) The person who suppressed the material information and/ or gives false information
cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
(vii) The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite
distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding
a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing
authority cannot be faulted.
(viii) An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused
employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false
statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if
ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a
person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
(ix) An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such
a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit
and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
(x) The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under
duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post
of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he
cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.
When we consider the above principles laid down in majority of the decisions, the question
that looms large before us is when consideration of such claim by the candidates who
deliberately suppressed information at the time of recruitment; can there be different
yardsticks applied in the matter of grant of relief.
6. Jainendra Singh was a case of discovery of criminal antecedents of a person after
appointment to service. All the issues formulated above are premised on suppression of
facts. However, noticing conflict of opinions of the Supreme Court applying different
yardsticks in the matter of grant of relief in several cases the above issues were formulated
and have referred them to a larger bench but after setting aside the orders of the Tribunal
and the High Court and upholding the cancellation of candidature of Mehar Singh and
another.
7. I find no serious legal infirmity in the impugned order and am therefore disinclined to
interfere in the matter and would for the foregoing reasons dismiss the petition in limine.
However, this order will remain subject to final outcome of the decision of the larger bench

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 5 of 6

of the Supreme Court on the issues raised in Jainendra Singh. No costs.

Printed by licensee : Shreya Sharma (Student) Page 6 of 6