The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a probationary driver for concealing pending and compromise criminal cases. The court held that the departmental enquiry was valid and the suppression of material information regarding serious offences justifiable for dismissal.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 7655/2016
Reserved on: 6th October, 2016 % Date of Decision: 8th December, 2016
BAHADUR SINGH ....Petitioner Through Mr. Anil Mittal, Advocate.
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .…Respondent Through Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The petitioner-Bahadur Singh upon selection by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, was appointed as a driver on probation with the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation on 5th July, 2010.
2011, for at the time of appointment and filling up the CVR form he had
concealed his involvement in three criminal cases. This, it was asserted,
amounts to misconduct.
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 1 of 10
were challenged by the petitioner in OA No. 123/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal for short). The OA has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21st December, 2015.
“Every new recruit will furnish two character certificates from gazetted officers, 1st or 2nd class Magistrates, MPs, MLAs or member of Local Bodies. He will also furnish his full particulars for verification of his character and antecedents, through the Police Department. His appointment will be liable to
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 2 of 10
termination in case of an adverse report by the Police Department.”
by the petitioner at the time of appointment reads:-
“
| Column No. 12 | |
|---|---|
| Have you even been prosecuted or punished for any crime in a court of law or detained or fined or bailed out? |
-N.A.- |
| At the time of filling this Form, is any case pending against you in any court of law? |
-N.A.- |
| If the answer is in affirmative, then give complete detail in respect of the case instituted against or fine imposed or detention, if any? |
-N.A.- ” |
9. Pertinently, the CVR form had a warning, which is reproduced in the
impugned order and reads:-
“The furnishing of false information or suppression of any information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for the employment under Government. If the fact that false information has been furnished or there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.”
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 3 of 10
the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case earlier or had a criminal case pending against him.
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 4 of 10
28th May, 2014 relating to FIR No. 139/2004, Police Station Kashmere Gate. This prosecution case related to death in a road accident caused by the driver of bus No. DL-1PA-5128. The cause of death as alleged was due to rash and negligent driving. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was the driver of the said bus. The petitioner was acquitted for the eye witness had avowed having seen many people gathered near the door of the bus, including the driver of the bus, but he could not state anything regarding rash and negligent driving or whether he had seen actual commission of the offence. He affirmed rash and negligent driving by the driver on a leading question put to him. The court felt that the eye witness had failed to narrate the evidence leading to the occurrence/accident and without corroboration, the eye-witness‟s account should not be relied to convict the accused, i.e., the petitioner.
disclosed his involvement at any time before the police verification report was submitted.
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 6 of 10
offenders in suitable cases. Albeit, this precept cannot be applied universally and uniformly to all cases, selection has to be made. Several factors, including the nature of allegations, whether it would constitute suppression of material information etc have to be factored, for a just and fair decision. Technical or trivial occurrences should not be a ground to not appoint or dismiss an employee, yet acts of deliberate concealment of involvement in a criminal case of serious or heinous crimes, which would render the applicant unfit are of consequence and should not be ignored. The Supreme Court in the said case summarised their conclusions in the following manner:-
“(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 7 of 10
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 8 of 10
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi , knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
type of offences alleged against others. Article 14, which incorporates the
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 9 of 10
doctrine of equality, is a positive provision and cannot be construed in a negative manner. Even assuming that there were errors made by the respondent Corporation in other cases, we would not direct the said Corporation to commit another error.
facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE
(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE
DECEMBER 8th , 2016 VKR
W.P. (C) No. 7655/2016 Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Departmental enquiry was necessary when the petitioner was on probation.
Whether the termination order was justified based on the deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents in the CVR form.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avtar Singh versus Union of India and OthersRelied on¶17
Avtar Singh versus Union of India and Others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BAHADUR SINGH
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
SANJIV KHANNA
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
