AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2005 whereby he has been disqualified and rendered unfit for employment as a constable by the Railway Protection Force on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his involvement in criminal cases at the time of filling up the attestation form for character and antecedent verification.
From a perusal of the admitted facts on record, it is evident that the petitioner had filled up the form on 17.7.2005. On the said date there were criminal cases pending against the petitioner being case crime No. 11/98, case crime No. 4024/04, case crime No. 89/95 and case crime No. 5140/97. The petitioner admits having filled up the declaration form by clearly answering the said column in the negative.
In defence the petitioner contends that none of the cases in which the petitioner was involved were of a nature which involved moral turpitude and that he was less educated and belongs to a rural back ground hence he did not understand the consequences of non filling up the form correctly. The main defence set up in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in all the criminal cases on 20.7.2005 and 29.7.2005 and 14.7.2003 by the court concerned and has filed copies of the said judgment as Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition, On the basis of the aforesaid facts it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he cannot be denied appointment.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A.B. Singh relied on two decisions of this Court in the case of Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner reported in 1997(2) UPLBEC 1201 and the case of Satish Kumar Shukla v. Union of India reported in 2002 (1) UPLBHC 610.
In Qamrul Hoda''s case this Court found that the petitioner therein was a student who was involved in a case of demonstration against the increase of fees of the students when the then Chief Minister of U.P. was going to a public place. It was found therein that the petitioner was only in class 11 at the lime when he indulged in this violence and therefore, without condoning his conduct the Court went on to allow him the benefit of employment and set aside the cancellation of the selection.
The second case relied upon by the petitioner is in the case of Satish Kumar Shukla where also the verification form was incorrectly filled up and the ground taken was that he was less educated. It was held that since the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of compassion he could not be said to be accused of any moral turpitude before he joined the service. The omission on the part of the petitioner therein was condoned and the petition was allowed.
A perusal of both these decisions would indicate that Qamrul Hoda was given the benefit of compassion as he was found to have participated in a demonstration at a very tender age whereas Satish Kamar Shukla was given the benefit of a compromise and his mere omission to state the said fact, in the form was condoned.
The petitioner''s case at hand is entirely different on facts in as much as the petitioner was involved in at least four cases and which indicate his bent of mind and also reflects on his personalty. It is correct that the petitioner may have been acquitted but at least this fact ought to have been disclosed in order to enable the authorities to assess his candidature. It is at this juncture that the decisions relied upon by Shri S.S. Srivastava holding brief of Shri Govind Saran deserves to be taken note of on behalf of the respondents.
The apex court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 492 has clearly held that the verification of an antecedent record was a very relevant factor to assess the conduct and character of the candidate. It was found that it was not desirable to offer any employment to such a person who did not disclose his antecedents correctly. The said view has been approved of by dealing the matter in detail and the plea that candidate did not correctly understand the contents of account of his being not very literate was rejected. The court went on to hold that a candidate having suppressed material information cannot claim any right of employment. It was also found that the certification by the candidate was false. The aforesaid decisions of the apex court squarely apply in the present case where the petitioner had suppressed the fact of the pendency of criminal cases against him. The subsequent acquittal of the petitioner, therefore can not be a defence for concealing the fact of the pendency of the criminal cases which according to the apex court was relevant and necessary to judge the character and antecedent history of a candidate at the time of his employment.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the order referred to herein above the petitioner cannot be granted any relief and therefore , the prayer for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2005 is refused.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.