Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Mishra v. Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2014WPS/4507/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his termination from CRPF service. The court held that concealing the pendency of criminal charges during recruitment constituted suppression of material facts and moral turpitude, justifying his discharge from probation despite subsequent acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it was devoid of any substance.

Dilip Kumar Mishra Vs Central Reserve Police Force… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

^^
^^>-
^\9 ,<.*"
(!^)y^.
^'.c,^^°>^'^•"""...-'"'

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (8) No. _j^O^:J2009

¶5

Petitioner	Versus	^Dilip Kumar Mislira, aged about 24 years, S/o Shri Madan Mohan Mishra, Constable-Driver (terminated) No. 070800056;Central Reserve Police P'orce (CRPF), 80 Battalion, New Bus Stand, Jagdalpur (C.G.), R/o Village Chapia, Jaideo, Post Bhatni, District Dewaria (U.P.)
Respondents	1\|Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), through Dcputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Bangarsia, Bhopal(M.P.) . Central . Rescn^e Police Force (CRPF), through Commandant, 80 Battalion, New Bus Stand, Jagdalpur (C.G,)
WRIT PETI	TION	UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE
cpNSTrruTi WRir, ORDE MATTBR.	oN OF R OR	mmA FOR: JSSUANCE OF A SUITABLE DIRECTEOM TO 00 JOSriCE IN THE

¶6

Details ofthe petidon.

¶7

HIGH COURTDffiCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HONI BlE SHRI PRASHANTKUMAR^MISHRA^J.

¶8

W.R.^VNo. 4507 of 2009

¶9

PETITIONER DilipKumar Mishra

¶10

VeNus

¶11

RESPONDENTS Central Reserve Police Force and another

¶12

None for the petitione|r.

¶13

Shri R.K. Pali, AdvoCate appearing on behalf of Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for Union of Ihdia.

¶14

: ! 10RAL ORDER

¶15

,; i (07/08/2014)

¶16

This matter was cafled :;twice on Monday i.e. on 04/08/2014 and thereafter it was again called on Tuesday and Wednesday i.e. 05/08/2014 and 06/08/2014 respectively, however, no one appeared for the petitioner. !:I . I i' j ;,' ' :.

¶17

In view of the repeated: non-appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has no option by,t to decide the matter by hearing learned counsel for thie Union of India and on the basis of material available on record. •

¶18

Heard learned counseljfor Union of India and perused the record.

¶19

Challenge in this pefjttoh! is to the order dated 13/08/2009 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner has been terminated from the service. On perusal of the petitioh ahd the doCiiments appended thereto, it is manifest that pursuant ;to the selection process initiated by the respondent-authorities|thepetitionerparticipated in the said selection process and after completing the same the petitipnerwas appointed on the post of Constat?le (Driver), however, the respondent-authorities passed the impugned ord;er holding that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in respept of pendency of criminal case against him in ^:j..., ^,| ! ;. _ ^ ^,;j..

¶20

the Courtof Devariya (Uttgir Pradesh) bearing complaint No. 375/2006 (Annexure P/3) in res^ectof commisstcjh of offence under Section 323, 504, 506 and 379 of,l,P,q. and the sajd, fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner while^subrnitting the requisite verification form. The petitioner has raised ia ground that:however after joining of the

¶21

:-.,.—4-

¶22

-^.-.' •^*&.^ " y' -'€' ..-^

¶23

-A-

¶24

petitioner in the servici,!t|ejpetitioneFit|ias been acquitted from the said charges by order datedt;'| 0/07/2009 ij^nnexure P/6). According to the petitioner, he has nof|suppressed a|ny;material facts as immediately after acquittal from the idrimihal charges he informed about the same to the higher authorities. Ilnerefore, the impugned order has been passed in an illegal and arbifrary manner:: and without affording proper opportunity of hearing tb t^elpetitionerl !

¶25

hl»w

¶26

On the other hand, tearnled counsel aippearing for the Union of India would supportthe impugn^iorder.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner:idid not disclose about the registration or pendency of a criminal cages against him at the time of submitting the requisite verification :form, ;whereas the petitioner informed about the registration of complaint case only' after.acquittal from the said charge. "r.^.i!

¶28

The Supreme Court in Commissioner bf Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, observed that 7|l|/s true Wat in the application form the respondent did not menti^n that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34, ^IPC^tProbably he did not mention th'ts out offear that ifhe did so he wQUld^iitomatically be disqualified." The Supreme Court further observed that|'(a^ any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape/and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the motter" ;

¶29

Although the judgment rendered by;the Supreme Court in Sandeep Ktywar (supra) has beeri referred to larger Bench, but since thereafter, the Supreme Court.in D^vendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and l;i':-l.':

¶30

•• ;,;! .^ iili-.;:

¶31

Others^, { has been helGi"ithat issue;^ obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is hjo more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suifablejfor the post! The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is differ6ht from supp'ressing the information of such pendency.^Thecase ijendihg^againstaj person^{mightnotinvolvemoral} turpitude but suppr^ssing 6f this infbrmation itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, woluld definitety amount to suppression of material information.i In thal; eventualjty, the service becomes liable to

¶32

2011 AIRSCW 3601 2 . (2013)98cc363

¶33

•^...'.. ..;.
"-y
^,..^'..
.'?;-: .•,7.'^-.1

¶34

-i-:.~..^;-^.-..— —V'.^'^M
;r.:^;-.^.:;;:'t

¶35

'm^

¶36

o^
Y_^

¶37

be terminated/ever|||jl|fh|j^||iad||^^^ further trial or the person Siil:l:j^;!ilil'i;?lil:1?^?ji-i'ffi concerned stood ac(|;Ujtte(||^itBHa^^|.||^^

¶38

According to the Suprj^rTle[|3ou a|;perN|on having done wrong cannot take advantage of hjs!Qwn wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent CourtJ In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons^{violatingthelawcarinotbe.} permitted^{tourgethattheiroffence} cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation (Vide: Union of India /. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and Lily Thomas v. Union of India). Nor can a person cla|m any rjghtarising out of his own wrong doing. '

¶39

(jus ex injuria non OA7^;|i ! 1 ! I 1

¶40

10.1n view of the above,|since admittedly the petitioner has concealed materiat informationfr6||arclihg'hisanteciedent and character, he is not entitled to continue in|stervjce and hi$ 9ischarge from service during probation does not sufterfrom any infirmity or illegality. Likewise, since the impugned order do|g not cast any stigma, but the same is outcome of the information about his antecedeht, which he withheld from the employer and the petiliioner was otherwise a probationer, there is no violation of principles'oftriatural justice.

¶41

';":' :^ ";i!J;l:,T: ,/ ^.; :'':;" •..^•!:

¶42

11 .Accordingly, the writ|pefitiQn being jdeyoid of any substance deserves to

¶43

¶44

be and is hereby dismiss|ed. .i. | i |[; i | |j
f":. ;";:s'"'i'l,
!'. •p'i
!-;.i
i:.t
IN^Ii'^ll'illl'''^.i';; ^!:!Vi:3iV^h,
11 :1;
"j;''li^g'^'a;,.i;iii:;;! ^:.: ;: ;.
Wff^
11:1.
I
;1 ;' :;ii - .

¶45

Sd/-
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Judge

Dilip Kumar Mishra v. Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Mishra v. Central Reserve Police Force and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.j.c.meshram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Lalan Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Uttam Kumar Ware Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Raghunandan Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramratan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Smt.lela Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.