GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JITENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Govt. of NCT of Delhi questions an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.04.2013, setting aside the termination of the respondent on 30.05.2011.

(2.) THE respondent had applied for recruitment to the post of Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC and was duly selected. He was appointed by a letter dated 07.10.2010/16.10.2010 and he consequently joined the services. Before the appointment, the respondent had furnished an Attestation Form on 01.08.2010. In Column 13, in answer to certain queries, he had indicated in Columns 13(a) and 13(b) that he had been prosecuted earlier and that he had been arrested, However, in response to the query in Column 13(f), he mentioned that he had not been convicted by any Court for any offence. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in its Show Cause Notice dated 03.05.2011 stated that the respondent's response to query to Column 13(f) amounted to willful suppression of material facts. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi's position was that the applicant/respondent was duty- bound to fully disclose all facts, including that in respect of two incidents in which he had been prosecuted and that they had resulted in conviction. In respect of one incident, the respondent had been prosecuted for offence under Section 279 IPC - convicted but let off on probation under the Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. He had been in fact sentenced with reprimand and fine. As far as the second incident is concerned, the common ground before the CAT was that the applicant had been prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323/341 IPC. During the course of proceedings, it compounded the matter. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi argued before the Tribunal, whom the applicant had approached questioning his termination on 30.05.2011 ­ that it was not the offence which was in question as much as the suppression of facts resorted to by the applicant.

(3.) THE Govt. of NCT of Delhi reiterates its grounds. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel urges that the Tribunal has fallen into error in not directing that the suppression of facts and the result in the other prosecution, i.e. compounding of offences amounted to wilful withholding of material facts. It was submitted that even if such disclosure had been made, there was a fair chance of the applicant's claim to be considered and recorded on its merits. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh [Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013]. The Supreme Court in a two Judge decision held that in such matters pertaining to recruitment to police force, the previous criminal cases and any further information as to whether that resulted in conviction or acquittal are material factors which a candidate could ill afford to withhold. In para 28, the Supreme Court held as follows: