MANOJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rather unfortunate case. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Cook in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and was posted in 9th Battalion, ITBP Force, Arunachal Pradesh. He joined service on 25.5.2012. He was on probation. He was issued a show cause notice on 2.5.2013 as to why his name be not removed and his services terminated on the ground of furnishing false information/withholding information about the pendency of criminal cases or acquittal in Column No. 12 of the enrolment form. The respondent ITBP received a character verification report from the District Magistrate, Mahendergarh, Narnaul dated 28.9.2012 informing ITBP that a case FIR No. 243 dated 7.8.2007 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC in Mahendergarh and was acquitted by the trial court on 26.7.2008. He filed reply to the show cause notice on 13.7.2013 taking the defence that he was a 'less educated person' and could not comprehend the future import of Column No. 12 on his appointment since he had long back been acquitted of the charge in the criminal case. He erred in not mentioning the same in the enrollment form. His reply was considered and the respondents vide order dated 19.10.2013 removed the petitioner from service in exercise of power under rule 22 read with rule 17(iv) of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Rules, 1994. Against the removal order the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the same be quashed and he be ordered to be reinstated in service. Column No. 12 of the enrollment form and answer given by the petitioner are reproduced below:-

(2.) The appointment to the post was made on the strength of self declaration of the employee under the terms and conditions that prescribed that in case of receipt of adverse report regarding character and previous conduct on background check, the person was liable to be dismissed or removed from service. In the order of removal passed on 10.9.2013, it has been recorded that the acquittal of the employee was on the basis of giving the benefit of doubt. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 4 SCC 644and the observations therein that young people often commit indiscretions and judicial approach should be to condone such indiscretions rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. This was also a case of non-disclosure in the enrolment form of past involvement in a criminal case. The respondent before the Supreme Court had been appointed as a Head Constable (Ministerial) and did not disclose in the enrolment form of his involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 325/34 IPC when he was aged about 20 years. The Court did not find the offence under Sections 325/34 IPC as a serious enough offence and, therefore, showed the path of a more lenient view and that Court should apply a more humanistic test for considering such a case even though offences involved were somewhat heinous in nature. The appeal was against the judgment of the Delhi High Court quashing cancellation of candidature. The view of the Delhi High Court was upheld but from a broader perspective.

(3.) In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh, 2013 AIR(SC) 2861 the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where an aspirant for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi police and was provisionally selected but not offered appointment after he was examined by the Screening Committee following background check and found him unsuitable for appointment for his involvement in a criminal case although it was compromised between the parties. He was acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Mehar Singh had disclosed in his declaration form that there was an FIR registered against him which case was compromised which led to his acquittal. He was issued notice to show cause why his candidature be not cancelled. In reply he submitted that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case but was acquitted. Mere registration did not disclose criminal propensity. The Screening Committee observed that Mehar Singh had assaulted a bus conductor with an iron chain; belt and stones in a pre-planned manner and caused injuries to him which showed violent nature and scant respect for the law. Aggrieved, Mehar Singh filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which was allowed. The cancellation order was set aside. The Tribunal found a couple of cases in which persons charged with Section 307 IPC were appointed by the respondent police. The writ petition filed by the police department in the Delhi High Court failed. In the appeal before the Supreme Court both the orders were challenged. It was argued that employment in Delhi Police is of a very sensitive nature. Therefore, character, integrity and antecedents of a candidate aspiring to join it, assumes importance. Acquittal of a person in a criminal case does entitle him to appointment or reinstatement as a matter of right. The appointing authority may still find such a person unfit to be appointed to the post. If some persons with criminal antecedents were appointed in the past; the doctrine of equality is not attracted to such cases. The Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 19, 21 and 28 of the report: