JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri R.B. Singhal, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri G.C. Upadhayaya, learned standing counsel.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are; the appellant applied for the post of Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary and was selected. The verification roll was sent by the Commandant P.A.C., Moradabad to the Superintendent of Police for verification of the character and conduct of the appellant. A report dated 6.11.2004 was sent by the concerned police station to the Superintendent of Police that Case Crime No. 870 of 2003, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. has been registered against the appellant in which final report has been sent to the Court. In the verification roll one column that whether the candidate has ever been convicted was there which was filed by the appellant in negative. An affidavit was also filed by the appellant before the Commandant, 23rd Battalion P.A.C., Moradabad on 19th October, 2004. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it was stated that no criminal case/cognizable matter in the knowledge of the appellant has ever been registered nor he has been challaned by the police nor any investigation by the police Is pending. The respondents after coming to know that a criminal case has been registered in which final report has been submitted took the view that the appellant has filed a false affidavit concealing the fact of registration of the first information report against him and, therefore, the respondents refused to send him for training. At that stage the appellant filed a writ petition praying for mandamus directing the respondents to permit the appellant to take the training. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition against which order this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that there was no error in the column mentioned in the verification roll, the appellant having never been convicted the verification roll was rightly filled. He further submitted that final report has ultimately been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13th January, 2005 and in fact an order was passed to initiate proceedings under Section 182 of Cr.P.C. against the complainant. He submitted that affidavit was superfluous and on that basis the appellant could not have been denied training. He further submitted that the appellant was never arrested nor he was challaned and no false facts were mentioned in the affidavit. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in ; Secretory, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. and Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naldu The judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in (1997)2 UPLBEC 1201; Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N.E Railway, Gorakhpur and a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2000)1 UPLBEC 763 has also been relied. A judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in JT 1999(1) Screening Committee 241;
Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr. has also been relied.
5. Learned standing counsel, refuting the submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that affidavit was required to be filed by every candidate who were selected for the post of Constable. He submits that the appellant has not been sent for training on account of concealment of material fact by submitting false affidavit, He further submits that in the affidavit itself in paragraph 14 it has been stated that if any fact mentioned in the affidavit is found incorrect, the appellant's selection shall be liable to be cancelled without any condition. Learned standing counsel further submits that the fact that final report was ultimately accepted is not relevant. He submits that it is the conduct of the appellant in filing the affidavit, which is relevant. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court ;
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathon and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav and in 2006(43) A.I.C. 956 (S.C.); Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.
6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record.
7. The verification roll as well as the affidavit filed by the appellant has been brought on the record. In the verification roll the only column was as to whether the candidate has ever been convicted. The appellant answered it in negative and there was no error with regard to that. The decision regarding not sending the appellant for training was on the basis of affidavit filed on 19.10.2004, specifically paragraph 4 in which he did not inform about registration of the first information report. The first information report was registered, which was investigated by the police and the final report was sent to the Court. The said final report was sent to the Court on 23.1.2004 which was accepted on 13.1.2005. The affidavit was filed by the appellant on 19.10.2004 on which date the final report was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for acceptance. The submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant that filing of affidavit was superfluous cannot be accepted. By the affidavit certain more specified information was required to be given by the candidate to know his antecedents and that affidavit was required to be submitted by all the candidates who were selected. The information which has been given in the affidavit cannot be said to be irrelevant for forming an opinion regarding character and conduct of a person.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2420 of 2005 (Harendra v. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 1,2,2005. Learned Single Judge in the said judgment has observed that "It appears that the affidavit was wholly superfluous, there was no requirement to give any such detail. The verification roll never required this Information." It is true that verification roll never required the information which has been asked by the affidavit but merely because verification roll did not require such information, it cannot be said that the affidavit was superfluous. The information which were required by the affidavit were as to whether against the candidate any criminal case/cognizable matter has been registered, whether he has been challaned by the police and whether against the candidate any police investigation is pending and further whether the candidate has been arrested for any cognizable or non cognizable offence and the details of the cases proceeded in the Court whether acquitted, convicted or discharged has also been called in the said affidavit. There are other information also required in the affidavit which have relevance in forming opinion with regard to antecedents of a candidate. Thus the above observation of the learned Single Judge in Harendra's case (supra) cannot be said to be based on any principle of law. There was no prohibition for the respondents to know any additional fact from a candidate before taking him in service.
9. Much emphasis has been given by the Learned Counsel for the appellant on the fact that final report has ultimately been accepted. He placed reliance on Qamrul Hoda's case (supra) and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma's case (supra) in which it has been held that after acquittal it will be deemed that criminal case never proceeded. This very proposition has been disapproved by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya's case (supra) where it was held that it is not relevant as to what happened to the criminal case and what is relevant is the conduct of a person which is to be examined by the authorities. The Apex Court held that requirement of filing attestation form was for the' purpose of character and antecedents of the candidate. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is extracted below:
II is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323. 341, 294, 506B read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the respondent tiled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the respondent as against columns 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the respondent is holder of BA, BEd and MEd degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he could understand columns 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken the help of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instruction of the respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. It is not the case that columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said "No" as against columns 12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were not material. The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making of false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service.
10. We also note that in the writ petition there was no pleading that affidavit was voluntarily filed by the appellant without it being required by the authorities. The judgment relied by counsel for the appellant in Regional Manager's case (supra) is also distinguishable. In the said judgment after the conviction of the appellant on 20th February, 1979 show cause notice was given on 26th February, 1980 and thereafter the termination order was passed. The conviction was subsequently sot aside and at that stage the plea of misstatement and concealment was made which was not accepted by the Labour Court and the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the workman, which was challenged in the Apex Court. The Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the said judgment observed following:
We make it clear this order of ours is rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned earlier and will not be treated as a precedent in future.
11.Thus the above judgment does not help the appellant in any manner. Another judgment relied by counsel for the appellant is Secretary Department of Home's case (supra), which is also distinguishable. In the said case the verification roll required to indicate as to whether the candidate has ever been convicted by a court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention laws. There was no requirement to indicate as to whether he was arrested or any case was pending. This was specifically noticed by the Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the said judgment. In the present case in the affidavit there was specific columns for pendency of criminal case and registration of criminal case. Thus the present case is clearly distinguishable from the above judgment of the Apex Court. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is extracted below:
A bare perusal of the extracted portions shows that the candidate is required to indicate as to whether he has ever been convicted by a court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any offences whether such conviction is sustained or set aside by the appellate court, if appealed against. The candidate is not required to indicate as to whether he had been arrested in any case or as to whether any case was pending. Conviction by a court or detention under any State/Central preventive detention laws is different from arrest in any case or pendency of a case. By answering that the respondent had not been convicted or detained under preventive detention laws it cannot be said that he had suppressed any material fact or had furnished any false information 0f suppressed any information in the attestation form to incur disqualification. The State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column 12 of the attestation form did not require such information being furnished. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an attestation form. We find no reason to accept such contention. There was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is pending or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific language so far as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be found guilty of any suppression.
12. In view of the aforesaid we are satisfied that in paragraph 4 of the affidavit the appellant did not disclose about registration of first information report in a cognizable case and has not given further details like submission of final report and pendency of final report for acceptance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date when he filed the affidavit. The fact that subsequently the final report was accepted and the Court directed for proceedings under Section 182 of Cr.P.C against the complainant will not relieve the appellant from the obligation to disclose the relevant facts in the affidavit. The submission that the appellant was required to be given opportunity of hearing also do not appeal. There was clear stipulation in paragraph 14 that if any fact is found incorrect the selection shall be liable to be cancelled without any condition. The appellant was bound by his affidavit. Learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant facts and has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any error in the decision of learned Single Judge warranting our interference in this appeal. We make it clear that in the present case the appellant was refused for being sent for training on account of non disclosing the relevant facts as required in the affidavit. Not sending for training to the appellant, in facts of the present case, shall not debar him from any future employment in accordance with law.
13. Subject to above observation, the appeal is dismissed.