The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a discharge order annulling the petitioner's selection due to concealment of a prior criminal case. The Court found no prejudice or arbitrariness in the respondent's decision given the undisclosed details.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21111 of 2016
Petitioner :- Babu Lal Meena Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,Gyan Prakash Singh,Shiv Kumar Pal,Sudhir Bharti
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Bharti who appears for the respondents.
This petition challenges an order of discharge in terms of which the respondents have proceeded to annul the selection of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of material facts.
The issue itself has arisen consequent to the petitioner being named as an accused in Police Case No. 305 of 2006 alleging commission of offences under Section 147, 149 and 304 IPC. In the attestation form which was filled in by the petitioner, he had made a declaration that he had never been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention. A further affidavit was tendered by the petitioner before the respondents in which he again reiterated the above declarations. It is in that backdrop that the respondents have taken the position that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case aforementioned. It is further pointed out to the Court that although the petitioner had been acquitted in that case on 26 May 2014 prior to the execution of the attestation form and the affidavit even then this fact was deliberately concealed.
Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed a submission with respect to violation of principles of natural justice, he has been unable to establish any prejudice being caused to him in this regard. Before this Court also opportunity was given to the learned counsel to explain under what
circumstances the particulars of the criminal case were not disclosed, however, no plausible explanation could be offered. In fact learned counsel did not address any submission to explain what circumstances weighed with the petitioner to not reveal the prior criminal case. The Court was also not informed whether the petitioner had been arrested in connection with that case. The submission of lack of knowledge cannot possibly merit acceptance since the petitioner admittedly faced a full trial before the Court whereafter he was acquitted. The Court ultimately notes that the discretion to consider the suitability of a person for appointment in a disciplined force must essentially be recognized to exist and exercised by the respondent themselves. The exercise of discretion in the facts of the present case has not been established to be arbitrary. Consequently the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 6.2.2019 faraz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether concealment of details of a prior criminal case disqualified the petitioner from selection in a disciplined force.
Whether the discharge order violated principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity to explain the omission.
Whether the respondent's discretion in deeming the petitioner unsuitable due to non-disclosure was arbitrary.
Babu Lal Meena
Union Of India
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
