JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. The petitioner qualified competitive test for selection as a constable in C.R.P.F. and was sent for training. After completion of training he was posted in Assam. However, before his services could be confirmed a departmental inquiry was instituted against him vide office order dated 22.10.1997 on the ground that while filling up his application form for service he has deliberately suppressed information about his involvement in a criminal case and as such has committed an act of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer after completing the inquiry submitted his report on 12.12.19967 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct. Accordingly, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, an order of dismissal from service was passed by the commandant 82 Bn. C.R.P.F. on 10.2.1998. The said order of dismissal from service has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Shashikant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.C. Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case in respect of which information was not given by the petitioner has finally been decided in his favour and he has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 (Annexure R.A.-1 to this petition). Therefore, since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case there is not justification to maintain the order dismissing the petitioner from service and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated.
Fraud unravels everything" is one of the basic principles of law. In other words fraud avoids all judicial acts.
4. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. , it has been held as under:
Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its various pronouncements has provided that dishonesty should not permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on behalf of such persons.
6. In Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) (Suppl.) 4 SCC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.
7. It is also a settled principle that no person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing i.e. a person having done wrong, cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
8. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav ; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a similar case, wherein, the employment had been obtained by suppressing the material fact that criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the From was printed in English and he did not have good knowledge of that, and therefore, could not understand as what information was sought. The Apex Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. The requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation Form was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuance in service.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of bCaptain P. Paul Anthoney v. Bharat Gold Mines and Anr. has held that proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with a little exception. The basis of this proposition is that the proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, where the charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent employee. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is also different then required in a' criminal case, The little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence and the proceedings are virtually common without there being any variance.
10. In view of the above law on the subject I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is liable to be quashed as the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. It may be relevant to note here that the petitioner has not been dismissed form service on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him or he was involved in the same. In fact his services were dispensed with after holding a departmental inquiry in which the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct of deliberately suppressing material information with regard to his involvement in the criminal case while getting himself enrolled.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any defect or error in the procedure of the disciplinary inquiry nor it is the case of the petitioner that the findings recorded in the disciplinary inquiry are perverse. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal of the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
12. Sri Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court reported in Qamrul Huda v. Chief Security Commissioner 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201. He contends that mere concealment of true facts while making declaration in the form is not sufficient to order the petitioner's dismissal from service. The case law cited above is distinguishable on facts and is of no help to the petitioner in as much as in the said case the candidate was refused from being sent to the training on account of his involvement in criminal case which fact was suppressed by him, while making the declaration. The order refusing to send the candidate for training was passed in a summery manner before the recruitment of the candidate in services and as such there was no departmental inquiry or finding of any disciplinary authority with regard to misconduct of the petitioner. In the present case the petitioner after being inducted in service but before confirmation was subjected to departmental inquiry and on being found guilty of misconduct was dismissed from service.
13. Sri Shukla has next relied upon a decision in Santosh Chaube v. Inspector General of Police and Ors. 2005 (6) AWC 5470. In the said case the services of a constable of C.R.P.F. were terminated for concealing material information regarding his involvement in a criminal case. The High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside the termination as the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without issuing show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the employee. The facts of the above case are entirely different as in the present case the order of dismissal has been passed after full-fledged disciplinary inquiry holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Therefore, the petitioner does not stand to any benefit on the basis of the above ruling.
14. On the other hand Sri K.C. Sinha, Additional Solicitor General has placed very heavy reliance upon a division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ramesh Prasad Patel v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (3) ESC 1669. The facts of this case squarely applies to the present case. In this case also the delinquent employee had obtained employment in Army by furnishing false declaration at the time of his enrollment, to the effect that no criminal case was pending against him and on verification it was found to be incorrect and as such was dismissed from service. The Division Bench of this Court considering the entire case law on the subject held that as the petitioner has suppressed material information and had made a false statement in seeking the employment, he cannot be permitted to reap the fruits of his own mistakes and as such his dismissal from service was upheld. The High Court further held that in cases of misrepresentation or making a false declaration, amounts to playing fraud and as such even opportunity of hearing is not required to be given and it would be a futile exercise in view of the admitted fact that the declaration was false. The above view is fully supported by two other division bench decisions of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar v. DIG, C.R.P.F. and Ors. 2006 (1) ESC 615 (Alld.) (DB) and Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (7) ADJ 241 (DB) wherein in similar circumstances the employee, guilty of suppression of material fact and furnishing false information was not given any relief even though he was acquitted in the criminal case and the order of dismissal from service was maintained. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal dated 10.2.1998 calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the order of punishment of dismissal from services is too harsh and is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct found proved against the petitioner. In support of this he has placed reliance in a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ram Bechan Yadav v. Commandant P.A.C. 20th Bn. Azamgarh 1998 (1) UPLBEC 730.
16. The above submission is not tenable in as much as in the present case the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner after hearing him on the quantum of punishment also. The authority after considering the gravity and misconduct of the petitioner, and the fact that he had not been confirmed in service has come to the conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained in service. The appointing or disciplinary authority in such circumstances is required to consider various factors such as the enforcement of discipline, level of integrity of the delinquent employee, the nature of misconduct and, therefore, if the authority finds that the delinquent employee is not a person fit enough to be kept in service, the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge more particularly when the employee has not been confirmed and is in temporary service. The Apex Court in case of Regional Manager, UPSRTC v. Hoti Lal following its earlier decisions in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra and Union of India v. Sardar Bhadur held that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to review the penalty imposed and to substitute its own punishment and the order of the disciplinary authority is to be treated as final unless it shocks the very conscience of the Court. A similar view has been expressed in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma . In the instant case the petitioner after due inquiry has been found guilty of misconduct and was not even confirmed in service, therefore, the punishment of dismissal is in no way disproportionate to the charge proved. It is in larger public interest to weed out bad elements at the very beginning instead of confirming them on the post. Therefore, the second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner also fails.
17. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.