Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on July 23, 2024, upheld the decision of authorities in the Central Reserve Police Force to terminate the services of a constable as he not only suppressed material information related to pending criminal cases for rioting and other offenses under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act but also concealed the fact of his judicial custody and bail.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted the respondent, Shishu Pal alias Shiv Pal, had complete knowledge of the registration of the 2011 FIR and the pendency of the criminal cases. Despite this, he had willfully withheld material information from the appellants while filling out the Verification Roll.

He had further misconducted himself when the appellants issued him a show-cause notice calling upon him to explain his position and falsely denied the allegations leveled against him in his reply, which ultimately led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, the court pointed out.

"The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and the ensuing criminal cases. Not just that, the respondent failed to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody and on moving an application, was released on bail by the trial court along with other co-accused," the bench said.

The bench quashed and set aside the orders by the Gauhati High Court's division as well as the single-judge bench and restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority on September 23, 2014, to remove respondent Shishu Pal alias Shiv Pal from the services.

The High Court had set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the candidate was unaware of criminal cases pending against him and he had been acquitted as well.

It also said the respondent was fairly young when the incident had taken place and there was a possibility of his having committed an indiscretion while furnishing incorrect information in the Verification Roll but not enough for the appellants to have adopted an unduly harsh approach, disproportionate to the offense allegedly committed by him.

In its appeal, the Union government contended that when it comes to uniformed service, suppression or false information is taken seriously as such a service requires a higher level of integrity. The respondent cannot claim a right to service or appointment or continuity of service when it has been established that he had deliberately withheld material information relating to his antecedents.

It also said any relaxation given to the respondent would run against the settled procedure established under the CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Rules, 1955 as also OM dated 19th May, 1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India read with Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which mandates that when a government servant furnishes false information to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service and should be dismissed after conducting an inquiry.

The respondent, on the opposite, contended the High Court has given the authorities the option to impose lesser punishment than the dismissal as the crime in question against him was related to a land dispute and he had subsequently been acquitted. His counsel claimed his name was falsely included in the dispute between two parties in the village and no warrant or summons were issued against him.

In the case, the court examined the issue of whether the authorities were justified in removing the respondent from services after a departmental inquiry on a complaint received about concealing two criminal cases pending against him.

In the facts of the matter, the bench noted when a private party submitted a written complaint that the respondent had deliberately withheld material information in relation to two criminal cases registered against him at PS, Barnhal, District Mainpuri, UP under several sections of the IPC and the UP Goondas Act, a show cause notice on May 3, 2013, was issued. However, he responded on May 13, 2013, specifically denying the fact that no case was registered against him or was pending trial or that he had never been arrested by the police or detained in judicial custody.

The court said the records, however, revealed that the respondent was arrayed as a co-accused in the 2011 case, taken into judicial custody and granted bail by the trial court on October 4, 2011. On November 13, 2013, charges were framed against him and other co-accused.

"All the incidents relating to registration of the FIR, detention of the respondent, his having applied for bail while in judicial custody, and being granted bail had transpired much before he was called upon by the appellants to fill out the Verification Roll, i.e., well before November 30, 2011," the bench said.

Further, the departmental inquiry recorded the fact that the respondent had prepared or got prepared forged police reports and certificates favoring him which were, in fact, never prepared or issued by the SHO, PS, Barnhal, it said.

"The sequence of events demolishes the plea taken by the respondent that he was innocent and had no knowledge of his implication in the criminal cases," the court said.

"Not only was he aware of the fact that he had been named in the FIR, he was taken into judicial custody and had applied for bail which was granted by the trial court, much before the date he filled out the Verification Roll," it pointed out.

With regard to a contention that the case was trivial in nature, the bench said the trial court's judgment recorded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused were absolved by benefit of doubt.

"In other words, it was not a case of clean acquittal but a case of paucity of evidence that led to the acquittal of the respondent and the other co-accused. In any event, in our opinion, not much would turn on the subsequent acquittal of the respondent," the bench said.

The court also noted the termination of services was not premised on the pendency of the criminal cases or their outcome, but on his failure to have truthfully disclosed in the pending criminal cases at the relevant point in time.

It relied upon much-quoted decision in 'Avtar Singh Vs Union of India and Others (2016) where broad guidelines were laid down regarding the yardstick to be applied for verification of disclosures made by a candidate.

"Ultimately, the purpose of seeking the relevant information with respect to the antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable the employer to ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the subject post," the bench said, as it quoted 'The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs Bhupendra Yadav' (2023).

The court also relied upon the decision in 'Daya Shankar Yadav Vs Union of India and Others (2010) where the consequences of examining the information received from a candidate with respect to his/her antecedents regarding suitability for the post have been discussed.

It also cited 'Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs Anil Kanwaria (2021) wherein this court had opined that even where there was a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged in the suppression of material facts relating to a pending criminal case.

The court, thus, held it cannot be urged that the decision of the appellants to terminate the services of the respondent was unjustified, tainted by any mala fide or arbitrariness or too harsh as the proceedings against him were undertaken and conducted in a fair manner and taken to their logical conclusion.

Case Title: Union of India And Others Vs Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal