PRAKASH BHIMRAO HENGAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This petition has been preferred by one Prakash Bhimrao Hengad who was selected and appointed as a Constable under the Central Security Force by order dated 12th January, 1985. This Force was in respect of the industrial Security which is a subject for the performance of the security service. After his selection and appointment, the petitioner was in service for a period of about 14 months on probation whereafter the order of termination came to be passed against him which has been appended to this petition as Annexure-I. It was dated 30th september, 1986. It stated that the petitioner who was appointed on probation and his services were terminated with immediate effect under clause 2 (a) of the Agreement Form executed by him under rule 15 of the Central Industrial security Force Rules, 1969. It seems that soon after this notice was served and the petitioner was relieved, he was not given one month s salary in lieu of notice and then later on, when he preferred the present petition challenging the order of termination, money order was said to have been sent to him in lieu of one month s salary which the petitioner refused. Be that as it may. The main challenge to his termination is that firstly, clause 2 (a) of the agreement Form which has been mentioned in the order of termination, in fact, did not exist, Shri A. B. Chaudhari, advocate appearing for respondents hastened to point out that as a matter of fact, clause 2 (a) as such, does not physically exist in the form which is required to be executed by any candidate receiving an appointment under rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules, that clause 12 of that Form in the nature of agreement which is required to be signed by the candidate, did indicate that he had to supply certain information in the event it exists. We have on record copy of the said Form Clause 12 of that Form, the execution and signing of which by the petitioner is no more in debate, required that in the event of arrest of such candidate or his prosecution or his being kept under detention or bound down or fined, convicted etc. etc. the candidate was under obligation to give requisite information. If any criminal case were also to be pending, he was to state so and it is not necessary for us to over-emphasis that before a person is duly selected and entrusted with the security duty, the relevant information regarding his antecedents. In the nature of his arrest, detention or prosecution were necessary to be supplied by the candidate. There is also no debate about this. What was contended was that this clause did not cover initiation of a Chapter case, copy of order sheet of which is filed on record as Annexure II, amounting to a prosecution. Secondly, it was pointed out that on 22-8-1983, though the said case was initiated, the said case came to be filed and closed against the petitioner. On the strength of this, it was pointed out that it was merely an enquiry and not a prosecution involving any criminal penalty, fine or imprisonment and that the case was ultimately only filed. Hence, it was contended that the petitioner could not have been found blameworthy for not giving details mentioned in clause 12 of the Form which was required to be filled up by him in relation to his antecedents. Alternatively, it was also pointed out that the representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondent and even if technically, initiation of preventive proceeding amounted to a prosecution of the petitioner, still the representation made by the petitioner for he being again taken back in service, should be directed to be considered by the respondents.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that the information possessed by the Appointing Authority consisted of an action under section 151, Criminal Procedure Code having been taken against the petitioner, so also the proceeding for an action under section 116, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) LOOKED at from any angle, therefore, there appear to be two glaring aspects. One was that a preventive proceeding in the form of Chapter case, was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1983 and before his appointment that proceeding also stood filed. Still, the proceeding was said to have a reference to the petitioner participating into an activity between the two communities for which, it is now informed to us, that an action under section 151, Criminal procedure Code was also taken. It is from the official record that the further detail of the grounds which weighed before the Appointing Authority in terminating him, was shown to us for further enlightenment as to what constituted a ground for termination. Being from the official record, we read the same. Petitioner s Advocate was also given an opportunity of referring to this and being part of the official record, it does not appear to be eligible for being further subjected to any verification. We feel satisfied that an action under section 151, Criminal Procedure Code was taken against the petitioner. Even if we were to technically not to accept this position as the respondents having not appended to their Return any such document from the official record, even then on petitioner s own showing a Chapter case appeared to have been initiated against him of which the petitioner had not supplied the necessary details in responding to clause 12 of the Agreement Form as Na (not applicable ). Indeed, we do not feel satisfied to accept the contention that initiation of a Chapter proceeding is not a criminal prosecution reflecting upon one s conduct or antecedents. For the purpose of verifying antecedents of the candidate who is the prospective member of Security Force of the Central Government, in our view, there cannot be any debate with respect to the fact that initiation of Chapter proceeding did also amount to a prosecution. The details which are required to be furnished are for full verification of antecedents of a candidate on whom security duties are required to be entrusted. We, therefore, do not feel satisfied to propose narrow construction on the phrase prosecution and to limit the prosecutions only to those prosecutions which result into awarding of monetary fine or imprisonment. In a sense, therefore, we find that initiation of Chapter proceeding is also a prosecution for which jurisdiction is entrusted to a magistrate rather than any authority of the executive. When this was so, we are further of the view that the petitioner with all bona fides should have supplied the information as against clause 12 of the Agreement Form required to be filled in by him and the necessary details should have been given by him rather than omitted to be given or avoided to be given by simply writing the two letters Na.