Dismissed

Napees Mohammed v. the Senior Commandant

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WP(C)/2088/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a CISF Constable's services. The Court upheld the termination citing suppression of a criminal antecedent in the attestation form as an act of moral turpitude and dishonesty, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The Court also noted the petitioner's suppression of a parallel pending case before another High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of termination upholds and no interference granted.

Napees Mohammed Vs the Senior Commandant — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2088 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NAPEES MOHAMMED, NO.120510025 CONSTABLE/ GENERAL DUTY, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 022.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.VISHNU,

¶9

SRI.S.R.AJITHKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SENIOR COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, THUMBA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 022.

¶12

2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTHERN SECTOR HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI-600 009.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.N. NAGARESH, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 2088 of 2014 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.V-42099/CISF/VSSC/DOC/ 2013-607 DATED 25/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.V-15014/CISF/VSSC/ADM/TS-NM/ 2013-7141 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/09/2013 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15014/L & R/SS/AK/2013-11140 DATED 17/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30/10/2013 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/11/2013 IN WP(C).NO.27506/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-4013/483/2013/L&R/28 DATED 06/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/04/2013 ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶29

EXT.R1B COPY OF THE ATTESTATION FORM.

¶30

EXT.R1C COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM. EXT.R1D COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/07/2013 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶31

EXT.R1E COPY OF THE ACQUITTANCE ROLL/PRE-RECEIPT. EXT.R1F COPY OF THE UNIT SERVICE ORDER DATED 04/09/2013.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.V. ASHA, J.

==================== W.P(C) No.2088 Of 2014

¶37

=================== Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the

¶40

Central Industrial Security Force (for short, “the

¶41

CISF”) as per order dated 16.04.2012. After completion of training at CISF, KRTC, Mundali, he reported to the CISF unit VSSC, Thumba on 03.03.2013. While working there, Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued to him on 25.07.2013 seeking explanation as to the proposed proceedings for termination of services, as it was found that there was suppression of factual information in the Attestation Form. It was also stated that during verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, District Magistrate, Bhind District, Madhya Pradesh as per his letter dated 01.04.2013

¶42

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶43

-: 2 :-

¶44

intimated that crime Case No.82 of 2011 under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Phoop Police Station, Bhind District, Madhya Pradesh and later acquitted in the case. But in the Attestation Form certified and signed by the petitioner on 04.04.2012 certifying that information given therein were correct and complete, he answered in the negative as against the entry in paragraph 12(b), 'Have you ever been prosecuted?'. Similarly in the Questionnaire Form in paragraph 4 he replied in the negative against the question, “Was any FIR lodged against you in the past?”. Petitioner was directed to submit reply, if any to the notice within 48 hours. Petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.R1(d) explanation dated 26.07.2013 stating that the case registered against him was false and he was acquitted. However,

¶45

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶46

-: 3 :-

¶47

negative answers were given against the questions in

¶48

paragraph 12(b) in the Attestation Form and in paragraph 4 of the Questionnaire Form due to ignorance. He requested to pardon him for the lapses stating that it was on account of his limited knowledge in English language that the mistake happened to occur and he did not have any intention to hide any fact. Requesting to exonerate him, the petitioner requested to drop all further action against him. Dissatisfied with the explanation, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 31.08.2013 terminating the services of the petitioner under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, “the Rules”). He was also sanctioned one month's pay in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the termination, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent

¶49

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶50

-: 4 :-

¶51

requesting to condone his lapses and issue orders revoking the termination. Pointing out the financial difficulties faced by him and again stating that it was due to lack of understanding of the questions he happened to furnish answers in the negative, he requested to take a lenient view. It was also pointed out that he was aged only 23 and the order of termination will be a bar for his future employment. The 2^nd respondent rejected the representation by Ext.P4 order dated 17.10.2013 rejecting the contentions of the petitioner and stating that the appointing authority had issued the order after a careful consideration of the explanation and following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 3^rd respondent. He also approached this Court in W.P(C) No.27506 of 2013. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 08.11.2013, the writ petition was

¶52

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶53

-: 5 :-

¶54

disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal. Thereafter the 3^rd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P7 order upholding the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition at this stage challenging orders, Exts.P3, P4 and P7.

¶55

It is the contention of the petitioner that termination of his services is contrary to Rule 25 of the Rules. He did not suppress facts and such a harsh punishment may not be imposed on him which would affect his service career. It is also

¶56

stated that the crime was registered on the basis of false complaints lodged by the relative of his brother's wife deliberately and those false complaints were dismissed by the police on 25.11.2011. It was stated that the petitioner was acquitted within three months of lodging the FIR. It is also pointed out that petitioner was aged only

¶57

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶58

-: 6 :-

¶59

23 and an order of termination of his services will

¶60

stand in the way of his being considered for any future employment. He also stated that usually order of discharge would have been sufficient as in similar cases under the respondents which would not have entailed disqualification for him in future employment.

¶61

Respondents have filed a counter affidavit urging the following contentions: At the time of joining duty, the petitioner has submitted an Attestation Form as contained in Ext.R1(b) and there is a Questionnaire Form also which he has filled up. Paragraph 12(b) of the Attestation Form requires answer to a question “Have you ever been prosecuted?”. Similarly in paragraph 4 of the Questionnaire Form, petitioner was required to answer the question, “Was any FIR ever lodged against you in the past?”. Against both these

¶62

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶63

-: 7 :-

¶64

questions, the petitioner answered “No”. The first page of the Attestation Form begins with a warning to the effect that “the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government”. Clause (3) therein also provides that “if the fact that false information has been furnished or that 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”. Moreover, there is a declaration also at the end of the Attestation Form to the effect that “I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief”. The declaration in the Questionnaire Form, Ext.R1(c)

¶65

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶66

-: 8 :-

¶67

is to the effect that “I....... declare that the

¶68

above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that in case the information is found to be false or incorrect my candidature is liable to be cancelled apart from any departmental or legal proceedings as may be initiated against me?”. On the basis of Ext.R1(a) report received from the District Magistrate, Bhind District, Madhya Pradesh that on verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, it was seen that the petitioner was involved in crime case No.82 of 2011 under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC which fact was known to the 1^st respondent. Show cause notice was issued on receipt of Ext.R1(a) intimating registration of crime against the petitioner at Phoop Police Station and the same was reported to VSSC, Thumba. As per Ext.P1, his services were

¶69

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶70

-: 9 :-

¶71

terminated as per Ext.P2 order after considering the explanation. It was found that the petitioner had admitted the fact regarding registration of crime against him and his later acquittal in the case. It is stated that the appointing authority had terminated the services of the petitioner in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules. Subsequently he was struck off from the Rolls as per Ext.R1(f) order dated 04.09.2013. In answer to the contention of the petitioner that answers happened to be given in the negative on account of lack of knowledge in English language, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Attestation Form as well as the Questionnaire Form are in Hindi as well as English and the petitioner had written the answers in Hindi. Therefore that contention is baseless. Further it

¶72

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶73

-: 10 :-

¶74

is pointed out that candidates are sufficiently warned about the requirement of furnishing correct information, failing which their candidature will be cancelled as can be seen from the Attestation Form

¶75

as well as the Questionnaire Form. Under the above circumstances it is stated that there was no reason to retain the petitioner in service. Petitioner was on probation and his services were terminated after giving notice and after considering his explanation and hence it was perfectly in accordance with the powers of the appointing authority under the Rules.

¶76

I heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶77

the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶78

Learned Central Government Standing Counsel

¶79

handed over a copy of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

¶80

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶81

-: 11 :-

¶82

at Gwalior which is numbered as W.P(C) No.3660 of 2014 in which petitioner has sought for the very same relief as against his termination. On a perusal of the writ petition it is seen that the petitioner has filed that writ petition suppressing the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. However, it is seen that he has stated that he had earlier approached this Court filing W.P(C) No.27506 of 2013 which was disposed of on 08.11.2013. The said judgment is produced as Ext.P9 therein. Referring to this writ petition learned counsel submits that conduct of the petitioner continued to be the same and he does not deserve any relief from this Court.

¶83

Coming to the contentions raised in the

¶84

writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force. It was at the time of his entry in the disciplined force that he had

¶85

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶86

-: 12 :-

¶87

filled in the Attestation Form as also the Questionnaire Form. There was sufficient warning in Ext.R1(b) Attestation Form and Ext.R1(c) Questionnaire Form regarding cancellation of the candidature in the event of suppression of material facts. Moreover, there is a declaration to the effect that information furnished are true and to the best of knowledge and belief of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner was that he was acquitted and a false case was registered against him. Whatever be the nature of

¶88

the case, he should have been honest and sincere in answering the questions. It is the conduct of the petitioner which is relevant and it was found that there was suppression of facts. Hence the

¶89

respondents were well within their powers to invoke Rule 25 of the Rules and terminate his services, that too after observing the principles of natural

¶90

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶91

-: 13 :-

¶92

justice. In this connection learned Central Government Standing Counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court. It is settled law that termination of service on account of suppression of material facts and furnishing of false information in the Attestation Form in disciplined forces cannot be interfered with. In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, ([2013] 9 SCC 363) , the Apex Court considered a similar case of constable who faced termination from service for furnishing false information and suppression of facts and held as follows:

¶93

“24. xxxxx The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case.”

¶94

W.P(C) No.2088 of 2014

¶95

-: 14 :-

¶96

All persons seeking public employment must be truthful and responsible to the information which will reflect his character. Therefore there is justification for termination of the services of the petitioner.

¶97

Moreover, it is also seen that petitioner

¶98

has filed another writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for the very same relief suppressing the pendency of this writ petition. This conduct of the petitioner once again justifies his termination from service.

¶99

Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶100

P.V. ASHA, JUDGE.

¶101

vsv

Napees Mohammed v. the Senior Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Napees Mohammed v. the Senior Commandant

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

N.P.Madhusoodhanan and Others Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Fact

P.Gangadharan Vs Kerala Water Authority

M.B.Prakash Vs Kerala Garments Ltd.

K.Abdurahiman Haji Vs the Secretary,Tirur Municipality

M/S.Sudarsan Clays and Ceramics Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Rajamanickam Vs Shornur Muncipality