Heard Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
Pleading between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2, order dated 13.4.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3, order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4, order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the respondent no. 5 and the order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus has been made to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner was enrolled in Central Reserve Police force (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRPF') on 18.4.2001 as Constable/Driver. The character verification of the petitioner was done. After training, he was sent for posting. Subsequently on a written complaint in an enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has concealed/suppressed the facts regarding pendency of criminal case in CRPF Form No. 25, column no. 12 (a) and (b) of the verification roll and on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was arrested on 18.7.1996 and the case was registered against him under Sections 115, 116, 120(b) IPC and 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in district Durg. This fact was concealed by the petitioner by stating in the aforesaid column as 'No'. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him wherein he was given full opportunity of hearing and the charge, that he has concealed the material fact by incorrectly filling up form as noted above, was found to be proved. Ultimately, after giving show cause notice etc. the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the respondent no. 6. Against the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner filed departmental appeal wherein the objections of the petitioner were duly considered and a detailed order was passed rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgement dated 4.5.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2010. On the basis of this acquittal, he filed review application before the authority concerned that too was rejected by the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4. The petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 3, which was rejected vide order dated 13.4.2013 and the revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the respondent no. 2.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is on bona fide information received from his counsel that criminal proceedings have been concluded against him and he has been acquitted, the petitioner has filled up the form by saying 'No' and that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the enquiry proceedings evidence has not been properly appreciated and analyzed and the enquiry report has been prepared in a mechanical manner. He further submits that in the enquiry neither the necessary defences were summoned nor the petitioner was given opportunity to summon them and as such, there was defect in the enquiry report.
Per contra, Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and submitted that there is a specific column no. 12 (a) & (b) and in this column the petitioner has specifically marked as 'No' and as such there is a clear concealment of fact that he was arrested and a case no. 160 of 1996 under Section 115, 116, 120(B) IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was registered against him in P.S. Bhatti (Bhilai) and the case was still pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Submission, therefore, is that it is a case of false declaration and concealment of fact and the petitioner has been rightly removed from service. Drawing attention to various documents annexed with the counter affidavit, it is submitted that it is very much clear that the petitioner was duly given show cause notice, opportunity of hearing and to produce his evidence and it is only thereafter enquiry proceedings were concluded. Attention was specifically drawn to annexure 11 to the counter affidavit to submit that he was also given opportunity to submit his objections regarding enquiry report. All such objections were duly considered by the appellate authority and it was found that the petitioner has deliberately concealed this fact.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Perusal of the enquiry report clearly indicates that the necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner and he was given full opportunity of hearing in this regard. The concealment of fact and false declaration in the form is clearly indicated from the documentary evidence, which is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the year 2011 and the criminal case was initiated against him in the year 1996 whereas he has entered in service in the year 2001 by giving false declaration that no criminal case is pending against him and he has never been arrested and has never been kept in custody. It is a clear case of false declaration and this Court finds that the petitioner is a member of disciplined force and his removal from service is not excessive in nature.
A reference may be made to a judgement of of this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, 2017 (4) ADJ 477 (DB), wherein identical question was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench and after considering the law on the issue involved, the dismissal from service was found justified and while upholding the judgement of learned Single Judge, the special appeal was dismissed. It may also be noted that Hon'ble Division Bench has also taken note of a judgement of three Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. Paragraphs 3, 4 19 and 20 of Raj Kumar (supra) is quoted as under:
"3. Question No. 12 contained in the enrollment form is as follows:
"Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, bound over, interned externed or other dealt with under any law in force in India or outside. If so state particulars?"
4. The appellant specifically stated 'No'.
19. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid decisions that the requirement of furnishing information contained in the enrollment form is for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the applicant as on the date of filling of the enrollment form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the incumbent in relation to his continuance in service and that the standard expected of a person appointed in a uniformed service is much higher than other services.
20. The petitioner was arrested in Case Crime No. 518 of 2001 under sections 323, 325 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and released on bail. He was tried by a Summary Security Force Court and was dismissed from service. It was not a case relating to shouting slogans or a petty offence. The decision taken by the Department in dismissing the appellant from service was, therefore, justified."
Further, insofar as the inquiry proceedings are concerned, it is the settled law that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding of fact as recorded by the competent authority and the impugned order also does not warrant interference insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned.
Though a large number of judgments have been passed by the Apex Court that the High Court cannot record its own finding and question of adequacy or liability of evidence cannot be considered by the High Court. A reference may be made in this regard to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of S.B.I. and others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Pundey, 2006 (7) SCC 212.
A reference may be made to a judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, 2015 (2) SCC 610 wherein after extensive discussion of the case law it has been held in paragraphs 15, 19, 20 and 21, which are quoted as under:
"15.....
19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.
21. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. These aspects have been discussed at quite length by this Court in several decisions including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham, 1997 (7) SCC 463, Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SCC 386, Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and another, 2007 (4) SCC 669, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others, 2009 (15) SCC 620 and the recent one in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply (supra)."
In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned.
Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Abhishek