Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67598 of 2015 Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,A.S.G.I.,Kartikeya Saran,S.C.,Vimlesh Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Posts of Constable in Railway Protection Force apparently were advertised, pursuant to which petitioner also participated and was selected. He was ultimately sent for training vide order dated 15.10.2014. While undergoing training the Chief Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force terminated petitioner's training vide order dated 27.10.2015. This order records that petitioner submitted wrong information in Clause- 12 (b) of the attestation form as also the notarial affidavit. It is recorded that in the attestation form, as also in the affidavit, the factum of pendency of criminal case has been suppressed.
The order of termination is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner's selection was pursuant to the recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2011 and that no proceedings were initiated or pending against him, then. It is pointed out that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 4.4.2013 under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. District Mau. Charge-sheet in the aforesaid criminal case was allegedly submitted on 11.12.2013. The alleged attestation form has been submitted by the petitioner on 3.6.2014. The petitioner asserts that he had no knowledge of the pendency of criminal case inasmuch as neither his statement was ever recorded nor he was asked to surrender or even apply for bail. It is submitted that the registration of criminal case bears the date of 1.12.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the attestation form itself in which para-12(b) reads as under:-
"12-(b)."Have you ever been prosecuted"
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid facts contends that on the date of filing of the attestation form i.e. 3.6.2014, petitioner had no knowledge or information of the pendency of criminal case and that no case was actually pending against the petitioner inasmuch as registration of criminal case happened only on 1.12.2014. It is also submitted that Clause-12(b) does not contemplate rendering of information regarding lodging of first information report but the clause merely inquires whether applicant has ever been prosecuted. It is stated that no criminal case was pending and the petitioner was not prosecuted by then. The affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner on 5.11.2014 also does not disclose pendency of the criminal proceedings for such reasons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pendency of the criminal case can be said to have started from 1.12.2014 and therefore, the declaration made on 5.11.2014 does not suppress any fact.
Counter affidavit has been filed disputing the averments made in the writ petition. An objection is also taken to the maintainability of this petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
At the outset, it would be appropriate to examine the plea of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition since the order impugned has been passed at Hazipur, in Bihar. The reason for terminating petitioner's services is the alleged suppression of criminal case and making of a false declaration. This court in Jagveer Singh Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2006 (62) ALR 902 had an occasion to examine similar exigency. The observations made in paras -14 and 15 of the judgment are opposite and reproduced hereinafter:-
"14. The legal principles laid down in the said Division Bench of this Court are not in doubt wherein it has been held as follows:
In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it may be summarized that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and to examine the issue of jurisdiction, it is necessary that one of the inter-linked facts much have occurred in a place where the case has been instituted. The said fact must have a direct nexus to the lis between the parties and in case the facts taken in the plaint/petition are denied, the plaintiff/petitioner has to prove the same. The fact must have direct relevance in the lis involved. It is not that every fact be treated as a "cause of action" in part and may create a jurisdiction of the court, in whose territorial jurisdiction it has occurred.
15.From the facts which have been noticed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in the selections held at Mathura. His appointment on probation has been terminated on the ground that he had concealed his involvement in Criminal Case in his application/affidavit prepared at the time of selection. The criminal case is also said to be registered in Uttar Pradesh. All the aforesaid facts have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This Court is satisfied that the bundle of facts interlinked and that add to the lis between the parties in the present case are sufficient to hold that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The objection is, therefore, rejected and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is legally maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the aforesaid observations to submit that part of the cause of action, in the present case, has arisen in the State of U.P. inasmuch the lodging of the first information report, suppression where of is alleged and made the basis for impugned action has been lodged in the State of U.P.
In view of what has been observed by this Court in the case of Jagveer Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that part of cause of action has arisen in the State of U.P., as such, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
This Court has already taken note of the relevant facts. Clause- 12(b) of the form merely required the candidate to disclose as to whether the candidate has ever been prosecuted. It is admitted that the petitioner had not been prosecuted by then. The commencement of the prosecution would start after the proceedings are initiated by the competent court, consequent upon submission of charge-sheet. The relevant date of commencement of proceedings in this case would be 1.12.2014. Petitioner, therefore, was not wrong in contending on 3.6.2014 that he has not been prosecuted. The facts, otherwise, pleaded in the writ petition about petitioner's lack of knowledge about the lodging of first information report or submission of charge-sheet is not shown to be wrong. The only basis for terminating petitioner’s services is the alleged suppression on his part. Unless the respondent can demonstrate that petitioner had withheld any information or had made a false disclosure, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated. The question of suppression would arise only when he is aware of the criminal proceedings. It is specifically asserted on behalf of petitioner that he had no knowledge of criminal proceedings. In the counter affidavit also, nothing is shown on behalf of the respondents as per which the knowledge could be inferred to the petitioner. The allegation of suppression against the petitioner is thus not substantiated.
Writ petition consequently succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27.10.2015 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4, cancelling petitioner's appointment, therefore, is quashed. Since formal appointment is yet to be issued, the respondents shall proceed to pass necessary orders for petitioner to complete his training and his candidature would then be processed for appointment. In case the training has already been completed, the respondents shall process petitioner's claim for appointment, forthwith. No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 n.u.