JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.2.2005 dismissing appellant's writ petition No. 5718 of 2005.
2. In pursuance to the advertisement dated for the post of constable in C.R.P.F. the appellant was selected and appointed by order dated 19.4.2001. Thereafter he was required to fill in a verification form which he submitted on 13.6.2001. In para- 12-A of the said form the following information was required to be furnished:
Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/ disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/ institution?
3. The appellant replied the said column by mentioning "no'. Subsequently vide the District Magistrate, Allahabad letter dated 13.7.2004, it came to the notice of the respondents that the appellant was involved and prosecuted in a criminal case. F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant on 10.2.1994 and registered as case Crime No. 33 of 1994 under Section 366, 376 I.P.C.. Police after making investigation submitted a chargesheet. The appellant was prosecuted in Crime Case No. 260 of 1999 in the Juvenile Court, Allahabad. The case was registered by the Court on 10.10.1998. At the time when the selection and appointment was made, criminal prosecution was going on. It appears that the witness Km. Sheela deposed her statement on 8.11.2002 wherein she retracted from her earlier statement and denied that the appellant committed any rape on her. Ultimately the appellant was acquitted in the aforesaid case by the Court of A.C.J.M vide order dated 11.10.2002.
4. However, the prosecution was going on in 2001 when the appellant submitted his verification denying that he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or punished/ fined/ convicted by court of law for any offence or disqualified by any court from appearing it examination etc. and thus the said information furnished by the appellant was false and therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. A chargesheet was issued and after holding an enquiry, inquiry report was submitted holding appellant guilty of making false declaration. Accordingly the Commander 23rd Battalion, C.R.P.F. passed order dated 18.1.2005 dismissing appellant from service by exercising his powers under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27(A) of C.R.P.F. Rules 1955.
5. The appellant approached this court by means of writ petition No. 5718 assailing dismissal order contending that since he was acquitted in the criminal case on the date when departmental chargesheet was issued and the impugned order was passed no criminal case was pending against him, hence the order passed by the authorities is illegal. Writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Hence this special appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no concealment of fact on the part of the appellant in as much as at the time of appointment on 19.4.2001 he was not aware of the fact that a criminal case was pending against him, since he had not received any notice or information regarding the said case. Hence, there was no occasion of giving any false information on his part. He brought to the notice of this court order sheet of the trial court in criminal case No. 260 of 1999 showing that after the case was registered on 10.10.1998, the summons were issued vide order dated 10.12.1998 but he got information later on since he appeared in the trial court only on 18.1.2002, 23.11.2001, 14.12.2001 and 21.12.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of alleged offence having been committed, his age was only 14 years. The appellant neither was arrested nor surrendered for bail. Thus it can not be said that he was ever arrested. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in any case once the criminal case resulted in acquittal, his dismissal from service was totally unwarranted and illegal. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following judgments of this court as well as Apex Court:
1. Kendriya Vidya Sangthan v. Ram Ratan Yadav.
2. Secretary Delhi Development Authority v. B. Chinmaynaidu.
3. 2003(1) UPLBEC 441 Bheekham Singh v. Union of India.
4. 2003 A.L.J. 2962 Lal Ji Pandey v. Director General. C.R.P.F.
7. Sri K.C. Sinha, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents No. 1 and 4, however submitted that after selection and appointment in the force, the appellant was required to furnish certain information in the form of 'Verification' as required under Rule 34(b) of C.R.P.F. Rules. The said verification was submitted by the appellant on 13.6.2001 wherein column No. 12(a) was answered in negative. However on verification from District Magistrate, Allahabad, he informed vide letter dated 13.7.2004 that a criminal case No. 33 of 1994 under Section 366, 376 was registered against the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid information the matter was further enquired and after collecting the details of the prosecution a chargesheet (Annexure-4) was issued to the appellant. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the appellant was found guilty of furnishing false information and submitting false verification. In para-1 of the verification Form, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was already mentioned that furnishing of false information or submission of any factual information in the verification Form would be a disqualification for retention of candidate in employment under the government. Accordingly on the basis of disciplinary enquiry report, the order dismissing the appellant from the service has rightly been passed by the competent authority. He submitted that writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and it does not require any interference in appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The first question to be decided is whether appellant furnished any false or suppressed information in his verification Form. He claimed that at the time of appointment or submitting verification Form he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case, as he had not received any information about the same. He further submits that so far as the arrest is concerned, he never surrendered for bail nor was ever arrested and therefore in this regard also no false information was furnished by the appellant, hence it can not be said that he was guilty of making false verification. However we found that the appellant neither in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application nor in the supplementary affidavit which he has filed has stated anywhere as to on which date he received notice/ summons or information regarding the criminal case registered against him in pursuance to the chargesheet submitted by the Police. Vague averments have been made by the appellant that he never applied for bail nor surrendered for bail and never came to know about the pending criminal case as evident from para 23 of the affidavit which reads as under:
23...the fact is that there has been no information of the petitioner of Criminal case No. 260 of 1999 registered at Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad and the question of concealment of fact would have come had the petitioner got the information. And thus in the instant case the allegations of the respondents about the concealment of facts was totally incorrect and baseless and therefore the order of the dismissal was bad in law. It may also be noted here that the petitioner never applied for Bail and at the time of alleged offence the age of the petitioner was only 14 years and neither and petitioner surrendered for Bail nor the petitioner has ever come to know about the Criminal Case pending against his and petitioner came to know about the Criminal Case only after the appointment in C.R.P.F. and by that time the petitioner was already appointed....
10. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted that he surrendered before the Trial Court and was released on bail on the same date by the Juvenile Court, Allahabad. It may be true that at the time when F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant he was only 14 years of age, but after seven years when he appeared for the selection for appointment to the post of constable in C.R.P.F. he was 21 years of age and well aware of the pendency of the Criminal Case and its consequences. The fact that appellant was released on bail itself shows that he surrendered and taken in judicial custody, whereafter released on bail by the court may be on the same day. Surrender before the court amounts to taking accused in judicial custody. Only thereafter, the question of releasing the accused on bail would arise. Clause 12-A of the verification Form is wide enough to cover all aspects of the criminal matter and there is nothing to show that the appellant in the year 2001 was not aware that a criminal case was registered against him in which he was released on bail and has not been discharged or acquitted till that date. It was incumbent upon him to furnish information in positive in Clause 12-A of the verification roll. However his reply in negative shows made him guilty of concealment of relevant information. The appellant was appointed in disciplined force and is expected to maintain highest standard of moral and character. He is supposed to possess a character above board since his services are to be utilized for maintaining law and order.
11. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the appointment to a public office is made, the character and antecedents of a person, who is to be appointed, are verified to judge his suitability to the post. It is more so important when the appointment is to be made to uniformed cadre i.e. disciplined force.
12. In the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar , the Apex Court observed as follows:
It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.
13. Whenever a person is appointed in the Government service some times he himself is required to furnish information regarding his character and antecedents, and some times besides his own information, it is also verified through administrative authorities of the concerned area. In the present case after selection and appointment of the petitioner, he was required to furnish information regarding his character and antecedents with a clear warning if any information is found to be incorrect, it may render him disqualified for employment. Undaunted with this caution, the appellant decided to furnish wrong information though he was not only arrested but was also being prosecuted for serious offences under Section 366 and 376 I.P.C. He concealed the said information and made a wrong declaration.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case at the time of his appointment and further since he was not arrested by Police at any point of time, therefore, he did not furnish any wrong information. It is admitted by him that he was released on bail when he surrendered before the Magistrate. The requirement under Clause 12 in verification form covers very wide information in respect of any criminal matter if any, initiated against an individual. The question whether he was arrested or not does not mean that only he was to be arrested by the Police. When he was enlarged on bail by the Magistrate obviously and the natural consequence that he was taken into custody by the Court and that is one of the form of arrest of a person. Further, the petitioner was appointed on 19th April, 2001 but he filled in verification clause on 13th June, 2001. The order sheet of the trial court which has been filed by the petitioner shows that criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 10th October, 1998 and the summon was issued to the accused on 10th December, 1998 and again on 7th June, 1999. On 7th January, 2002 the order sheet mentions as herein under:
07.01.2000.
Called out. Accused about under surending dated 7.3.2000 for app J.M.
15. This shows that the petitioner had received the summon at least on or before 7th January, 2000. The petitioner has also not stated any where that he did not receive summon on or before filling the verification form. The only averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 23 of the writ petition is that at the time of appointment on 19th April, 2001 he did not have the information of the pendency of the aforesaid case. More interesting thing is that the facts stated in the said application are not verified by filing any valid affidavit in as much as the affidavit annexed in support of the aforesaid application is not complete and the paragraphs are not filled in the original affidavit. Therefore, in the eyes of law, there is no affidavit filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no where stated and has placed anything on record to show that he did not have any information about the aforesaid case till the date he filled in verification form and has also not stated as to when he received information. Further regarding his arrest, the petitioner was well aware that he was released on bail and, therefore, as to why he gave a wrong information in column No. 12 which is very widely worded. No explanation is forthcoming. In these circumstances, the contents of the petitioner that he was not aware of the criminal case is neither factual correct not can otherwise be believable.
16. The second question is the effect of such wrong declaration which has to be considered by this Court.
17. A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Raiasthan 2001 (4), Education Service Cases 1837 considered the following issues:
(i) Whether the fact that a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground ?
(ii) Whether the ultimate acquittal of a candidate who was prosecuted on a criminal charge would condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact the he was prosecuted ?
(iii) Whether the suppression of the material fact would not by itself disentitle a candidate from being appointed in service ?
18. The aforesaid questions were replied in paragraph 26 as hereunder:
In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as follows :
1. That a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground.
2. That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted.
3. That suppression of material fact would by itself - disentitle a candidate from being appointed in service.
19. Very recently in the case of Andra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Ors. , following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav' case (supra), it was held as under :
at no point of time did the first respondent inform the appellant Commission that there was a bona fide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the appellant Commission discovered by itself that there was suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the part of the first respondent in the application that the respondent came forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. That there has been suppressio veri and suggestio falsi incontrovertible. The explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence, is unacceptable. In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the ration of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and contending that a person who indulges in such suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. We completely endorse this view.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Supra) considered almost similar case where Ram Ratan Yadav was selected for the post of Physical Education teacher and was issued appointment order on 16.12.1997. He was required to file attestation form and in column 12(1) of the said form, the information was required as to whether any criminal case was pending against him, which he replied by mentioning 'No'. Subsequently, it was disclosed that a criminal case was actually pending against him under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506B read with Section 34 I.P.C. and on the ground of suppression of factual information, his services were terminated vide order dated 7th April/8th April, 1999. In the said case also, subsequently the said criminal case was withdrawn by the Government and in these circumstances, his writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Reversing the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court held as hereunder :
The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well.
21. This judgment relied by the learned counsel for appellant in fact supports the respondents and is against the appellant.
22. The next case relied by the appellant Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. and Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (Supra) and on its strength he contended that even if he mentioned a wrong fact in the verification form, since he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, his dismissal from service is illegal. The contention is wide off the mark. The facts of the case of B. Chinnam Naidu are totally different. In the said case column 12 of the attestation form was in the following words:
Column 12.- Have you ever been convicted by a court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any offence whether such conviction sustained in court of appeal or set aside by the appellate court if appealed against.
23. The aforesaid column clearly shows that the candidate was required to indicate as to whether he was ever convicted by the court of law or detained under any State or Central Preventive Law for any offence whether such conviction sustained in court of appeal or set aside by the appellate court if appealed against. Candidate was not required to indicate as to whether he has been arrested in any case or as to whether any case was pending. The Apex court in the light of the language of column 12 of the attestation form as involved in Naidu's case, thus noted that the candidate since was not required to indicate his arrest or pendency of criminal case, hence Naidu by giving information in negative did not conceal or suppress any material fact since neither he was arrested nor any criminal case was pending against him. The observation of the Apex Court distinguishing the said case is evident from the following:
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.(Para-9)
24. However, in the case in hand, column 12-A of the verification clause is very wide as it not only required the candidate to inform as to whether he was convicted by court of law etc. but it also required to disclose as to whether he was ever arrested, prosecution, kept under detention or bound down/fine, convicted etc. The fact that the petitioner was released on bail by the Magistrate pursuant to the lodging of the first information report under Section 366/376 I.P.C. itself was an information which ought to have been disclosed in column 12-A, since it is covered by the information required to be furnished by the candidate. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant is guilty of suppression of material fact i.e. suppressio veri and suggestio falsi which in view of the declaration made in verification form rendered him liable dismissal from service by the competent authority.
25. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to two judgments of this Court rendered by an Hon'ble Single Judge, reported in 2005 (2) UPLBEC 1682 Ramesh Chandra Saroj v. Union of India and Ors. and a Division Bench judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar v. Officer Incharge. Samyukt Karyalaya, Firozabad and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) UPLBEC page 1684.
26. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Saroj (Supra), a similar controversy involved wherein due to furnishing of wrong information, the petitioner, who was appointed as Constable in CRPF ,was terminated. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav and Delhi Administration case, the Hon'ble Single Judge upheld the aforesaid action of the authorities and dismissed the writ petition. We are agree with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Ram Ratan Yadav's case.
27. In the later case one Ajay Kumar was appointed on probation, although, he was undergoing trial under Section 302 I.P.C. He was terminated by an order of termination simplicitor. The Division Bench while dismissing his appeal in paragraph 12 observed as under :
In this case the respondents cannot be visited with any such adverse decision or finding. They had on their hands a probationer who was under trial on a very serious criminal charge, it was to within their power to decide the criminal case or to have it decided within any reasonable time. They had to make a choice in 1991: whether that choice was right or wrong, would never be before the Writ Court: the only point before the Writ Court would be whether that choice was reasonable. Nobody can today doubt that the choice was reasonable. It was quite open to the respondents, as it would be open to any public respondents, at any time, not to make a probationer a permanent employee, when it becomes known that he is facing a very serious criminal charge, from which he might or might not be acquitted.
28. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the dismissal of service is very serious punishment imposed upon him since fault on the part of the appellant regarding non furnishing of correct information cannot be considered to be such a serious offence warranting dismissal from service. In support of the above contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rama Kant Yadav reported in 2003 (1) UPLBEC 269. We are surprised to see that the aforesaid judgment does not help the appellant at all and it appears that the photo copy of the aforesaid judgment has been made available to us by the learned counsel for the appellant without checking it. The apex court in the case of Rama Kant allowed the appeal of the State and the judgment of the High Court was set aside which had interfered with the punishment inflicted upon Rama Kant on the ground of being disproportionate. The apex court held that the charges are quite grave and need no interference from the court. In the present case, the Apex court in Ram Ratan Yadav's case and Andra Pradesh Public Service commission (supra) has also upheld the termination and dismissal of the employees for the "suppressio veri and suggestio falsi" and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, it cannot be said that the order passed by the authorities disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and require any interference from this Court. This submission thus is also negated. No other argument has been advanced before us.
29. Thus, we are of the view that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and the judgment under appeal needs no interference.
30. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.