Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India

Rajasthan HC21 Jan 2022CW/9051/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of petitioner's services due to intentional concealment of criminal antecedents in the application form. Relying on Avtar Singh, the Court held that suppression of material facts grants sole discretion to the employer to terminate services despite acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition stands dismissed and the impugned termination order is upheld.

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9051/2018

¶3

Anil Kumar S/o Shri Manaram Bhakar, Aged About 26 Years, Village Post- Sirsali, Tehsil And District- Churu. (Posted On The Post Of Driver Mechanical Transport (Ordinary Grade)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi

¶7

Hq Dgbr/eg2, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi- 110010

¶8

Grff Records/er-6, Dighi Camp, Pune- 411015

¶9

Col Commander, 50 Brtf, Tangse, Leh Ladakh

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. K.R. Saharan through VC
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh for
		Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit through VC

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

21/01/2022

¶15

The present petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver Mechanical Transport (Ordinary Grade) on 25.01.2016. In the year 2013, that is, prior to his coming into services, a criminal case had been registered against him for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on the basis of compromise, he was acquitted in the matter while giving him benefit of doubt under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. After passing of the said judgment dated 03.02.2017, the petitioner placed the same before respondent-authorities along with his representation

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-9051/2018]

¶18

dated 14.02.2017 and the Character Verification Certificate dated 13.02.2017.

¶19

Vide notice dated 01.05.2017 the petitioner was served with an order for termination of services to come into effect after expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of the said notice. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice but no action thereupon was taken and he stood terminated. Against the same the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the termination of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of criminal antecedents in his attestation/application form is not valid as he had been acquitted in the said matter and the Criminal Court had specifically given a finding that the grant of benefit of doubt would not be deemed to be a disqualification for the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 and Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in 2011 (4) SCC 644, his termination ought to be declared to be invalid as the criminal proceedings against him were not for offences of heinous nature but only for trivial offences.

¶21

Per contra counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is a specific case of intentional concealment and therefore as the law is settled on the issue, the discretion of the employer in such matters is final. Counsel also submitted that as held in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), it is the sole discretion of the employer to decide on the fact that despite acquittal the employee is to be continued in service or not. Counsel further submitted that the employer in the present matter is General Reserve Engineer Force

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-9051/2018]

¶24

which is a department of highest discipline and therefore, strict parameters of discipline are to be maintained by an employee of the said service. Counsel submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of his criminal antecedents at the time of filling of the attestation/application form and therefore, it is a clear case of intentional concealment.

¶25

It is relevant to mention here that this is the second round of litigation as the petitioner earlier too had approached this Court and vide order dated 20.03.2018, the respondents were directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with the ratio as laid down in Avtar Singh’s case (supra). In pursuance to the directions issued vide order dated 20.03.2018, the Department proceeded on to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to pass a detailed and speaking order thereupon. Counsel submitted that the said order had been passed strictly in adherence to the ratio laid down in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) and therefore, this Court should refrain from interfering with the same.

¶26

It is an admitted case on record that the petitioner was aware of the criminal proceedings registered against him in past and he did not furnish the details of the same while filling the attestation/application form. Rather on the contrary, the petitioner replied in negative to all the questions pertaining to the details of any criminal antecedents. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was any bonafide mistake or unintentional concealment on behalf of the petitioner. Now it has been settled in a catena of judgments that in all the cases where there had been non-disclosure of a criminal antecedent by the candidate in the application form, it would be the sole discretion of the

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CW-9051/2018]

¶29

employer to decide on the same keeping in mind the nature of the offence and the impact of the same on the service of the candidate he is needed to provide in future. As held in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or after giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and can also decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. As further held in Avtar Singh’s case (supra):

¶30

“24. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case.

¶31

In view of the ratio as laid down in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) and the observations as made above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶32

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶33

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶34

13-T.Singh/-

Anil Kumar v. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India

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

Anil Goliya Vs State

Kishori Lal Verma Vs Great Value Developersprivate Limited

Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan