AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—The Petitioner was selected for recruitment as a Constable in CRPF on 18.4.1995 and while filling up the verification roll replied in the negative to the information sought: Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of Law for any offence. He did not inform that the Petitioner was challaned by a Traffic Constable and he had to appear in the Court of a learned Traffic Magistrate for having committed an offence punishable u/s 279 Indian Penal Code i.e. he was found driving a truck on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to a person as also for the offence punishable u/s 336 Indian Penal Code i.e. having done an act so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, and for which the Petitioner was fined Rs. 400/-.
When aforesaid information surfaced and needless to state it surfaced during character verification, a charge sheet was served upon the Petitioner for having secured public employment by suppressing a relevant information and needless to state the allegation was proved resulting in the Petitioner being removed from service w.e.f. 22.6.1998. Appeal filed was rejected vide order dated 2.7.1998.
Before the Inquiry Officer the Petitioner took a defence that he had submitted a ''certificate of character'' when he was given employment and in the same the District Magistrate had clearly written that though the antecedents of the Petitioner were impeccable but he was fined Rs. 400/- in police case No. 620 dated 17.11.1992 for offences punishable u/s 279/336 Indian Penal Code.
The said aspect with respect to the certificate has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer, but in respect thereof, learned Counsel for the Respondent urges that the gravamen of the charge against the Petitioner was of suppressing relevant information in the verification roll.
It is true that while filling up the verification roll, pertaining to information sought vide serial No. 12(a) of the verification roll, information being sought is as per para 1 above, the Petitioner replied in the negative, but it cannot be lost sight of that the Petitioner was brought before a Magistrate pursuant to a challan issued by a Constable for the offence of rash and negligent driving. The Petitioner never injured or killed anybody due to rash and negligent driving. It is just that, he was driving too fast.
If public employment is to be denied for having committed the offence of rash driving, there would be hardly any person in India who would be eligible for public employment inasmuch as to enforce discipline on the roads, all those who drive beyond the stipulated speed limit are booked for rash and negligent driving. They pay a petty fine and get rid of the trouble and even if somebody is wrongly booked, he/she would prefer to pay the fine rather than engage a lawyer, spend considerable money, then follow up the matter and spend considerable time to earn an acquittal. It hardly matters if the fine is paid for the reason No. moral turpitude is involved and nobody looks at such an offender as a demeaning person with bad character.
Now, it is only when you suppress relevant information that you can be charged for a wrong, whether civil or otherwise. Suppression of irrelevant information is neither here nor there.
Pertaining to character verification, we have a doubt whether being booked and fined for rash and negligent driving, without more, would have any bearing on the character and hence the character verification and thus non disclosure of said information cannot be equated with suppression of material information.
The matter can be looked at from another angle. If somebody is fined for rash and negligent driving upon a challan issued by a Police Constable, nobody would treat such a person as an offender at law. For if this is to be treated as an offender at law, the person upon whom a fine is levied for wrongful parking would also have to be treated as an offender at law and then probably we may have to outsource public employment to foreign shores, and even if we were to do so, we are doubtful whether enough saints could be found who have lived the orderly lives as lived by bees and ants i.e. have just not violated any law and have never paid a fine.
On the facts of the instant case, the matter can be yet looked at from another angle. Being required to furnish a character certificate, Petitioner obtained one from the Sub-Divisional/District Magistrate of the District in which he resided and in the said certificate the learned District Magistrate had clearly written that though the antecedents of the Petitioner were impeccable, he had once in the past been fined a sum of Rs. 400/-in a police case for having committed offences punishable u/s 279/336 Indian Penal Code. Thus, there is No. intention on the part of the Petitioner to suppress any relevant information and the charge that the Petitioner intentionally suppressed the relevant information is thus incorrect.
Surely, public employment cannot be denied for offences which do not involve a moral turpitude. There is No. moral turpitude in the offence of rash and negligent driving, we hasten to add that we are not justifying rash and negligent driving, but would highlight that societies have always striven to draw a distinction between moral, civil and criminal wrongs and even in the last category i.e. of criminal wrongs, has always drawn the distinction between such offences which involve a moral turpitude and those which do not.
The impugned orders cannot stand the scrutiny of law and thus are quashed.
What should be the final relief?
It is unfortunate that docket explosion has chocked the path of justice and instant petition filed in the year 1999 is being decided by us a little after 12 years of it being filed. The Petitioner who is present in Court today states that he is today aged 38 years. He has not practised the daily drills which he would have, had he continued to be employed in CRPF even as a driver, the post for which he was appointed. But, we also have to consider the fact that all force personnel of CRPF are combatized, for in emergency, each force personnel is expected to use arMs. They are required to perform morning and evening drills so that they remain fit. We do not know the fitness level of the Petitioner and thus his continued utility as a driver with CRPF. These aforesaid facts have to be weighed by us while granting relief. Reasonable compensation which could be paid to the Petitioner for a wrongful termination of service is also an alternative.
The Petitioner states that he is driving a truck and that save and except the unfortunate trivial incident in his life which took place in the year 1992 when he was found rashly and negligently driving a truck, he states that having burnt his fingers once he has never driven beyond the speed limit prescribed on public pathways and further informs that he has never been booked, much less convicted for any offence.
The Petitioner has certainly been wronged. Recompense has to follow.
We dispose of the writ petition issuing directions in the alternative. We firstly direct that upon Petitioner appearing before the DIG (Admn.) CRPF at CGO Complex New Delhi, the DIG (Admn.) CRPF would subject the Petitioner to a physical endurance test as also a medical evaluation test to determine the physical and medical fitness of the Petitioner and while so doing would ensure that the standard applied would not be that of a fresh recruit for the reason jawans are recruited in CRPF having age between 18 years to 25 years and it would be kept into consideration that the age of the Petitioner is 38 years. If the Petitioner is found fit, he would be given employment as a constable driver, the post which he held before his services were terminated and in said eventuality No. back wages would be paid to the Petitioner but the period post removal from service till reinstatement would be treated as qualifying service for purposes of pension as also as notional service rendered during said period to enable the Petitioner to earn notional increments i.e. his current salary would be paid with deemed increments as also the ACP/MACP benefits. If Petitioner is not found fit, we direct the Respondents to recompense Petitioner by paying him a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).
Compliance would be made within a period of 12 weeks from today i.e. within said period the Petitioner would be physically and medically examined to determine suitability for being re-employed with CRPF and if found suitable necessary directions for reinstatement would be issued. If found unsuitable, within the said period of 12 weeks the compensation would be paid.
No costs.