Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupender vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 22 April, 2021Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….1….
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020
Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2021.
Bhupender
…Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana & Others
…Respondents
(Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 4 with
Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, respondent No.4.
* * * *
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence
of this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.4 whereby
he has been disqualified for his selection as Constable in Haryana Armed
Police (for short, ‘HAP’).
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the averments as
canvassed by the petitioner in the instant petition, are that in pursuance of
Advertisement No.8 of 2015 as notified by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (for short, ‘the HSSC’) on 19.07.2015 for inviting the online
applications for direct recruitment on 5000 posts of Male Constables
including 1650 posts allocated to the General Category, he applied for the
said post. Prior thereto, he along-with three more persons had been falsely
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….2….
implicated in a criminal case as registered vide FIR No.930 dated
22.12.2013 at Police Station, City, Bhiwani under Sections 323/341/34 IPC.
Though he was formally arrested in the said case but was released on bail on
the same day and finally, he as well as his co-accused, were acquitted in the
afore-mentioned case by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, vide
the judgment dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure P-1).
3. The petitioner has also averred that in his application form,
there was one column seeking the following information:-
“Are you convicted for an offence or charges have been
framed involving moral Turpitude or punishable with
imprisonment for 3 years or more?”
Keeping in view the fact that he had already been acquitted in the
above-said criminal case involving minor offences, he answered the above-
said query in negative. His physical test was conducted on 13.07.2016 and
he cleared the same. Thereafter, he appeared in the written-examination as
held on 28.08.2016 and also in the interview-cum-personality test on
17.06.2017. His name appeared at Sr. No.63 in the list of the selected
candidates as released on 20.08.2020.
4. The petitioner has, further, averred that on 24.08.2020, he went
to join the training at Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban and on the
completion of his medical examination on 27.08.2020, he was asked to fill
up the Attestation Form. However, while filling up Column No.13 in the
said Form, he got confused and construed the same to be the one seeking
information regarding any pending criminal case and therefore, he replied
the same also in negative therein. He was allocated to 2nd Battalion of HAP
and was to be allotted Regimental Number so as to undergo the training at
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….3….
the said Academy but after his character verification, the Superintendent of
Police, Bhiwani, wrote a letter dated 01.09.2020 (Annexure P-6) to the
Commander of the Academy (respondent No.4) reporting therein about the
entire details of the afore-said criminal case as was registered against him
(petitioner). Then, respondent No.4 sought the opinion of the Assistant
District Attorney in respect of the said report and thereafter, the impugned
order Annexure P-7 was passed disqualifying him for being considered for
the allotment of the Regimental Number without affording him (petitioner)
any opportunity of being personally heard in this regard and also without
taking the factum of his acquittal in the above-said case into consideration as
well as appreciating the fact that he had studied in the schools in the rural
areas throughout and could not properly understand the intent of the queries
posed in Column No.13 of the said Attestation Form.
5. In their written-statement, the respondents have contested the
claim of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground of concealment of the true
and material information by him from the competent authority while filling
up the Attestation-cum-Verification Form Annexure P-5 by answering the
queries, as put-forth in Column No.13 therein regarding his having ever been
arrested or prosecuted, in negative which attracts the provisions as contained
in Rule 12.18 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules (for short, ‘PPR’) which
provide for the disqualification of the candidature of a candidate on account
of non-disclosure of the factum of registration of FIR or criminal case
against him for any offence under any law as well as of the current status
thereof in the Application Form and the Attestation-cum-Verification Form
as well irrespective of the final outcome of the case. They have also asserted
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….4….
that at the time of filling up the Attestation-cum-Verification Form, the
petitioner was required to disclose the true facts by providing the
information therein regarding the said criminal case but he intentionally
concealed the same and though, he had been acquitted in the said case but
his acquittal was based on the factum of the material witnesses having
turned hostile in the Court as mentioned in the judgment Annexure P-1 and
therefore, he cannot be considered for his recruitment on the post of
Constable and thus, the impugned order Annexure P-7 has been correctly
passed by respondent No.4 and the same is perfectly legal and justified.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
State counsel in the present petition and have also gone through the file
thoroughly.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner had been falsely implicated in the said criminal case but he had
already been acquitted in the same before submitting the application form
for seeking recruitment on the post of Male Constable, as advertised by the
HSSC and since the offences, involved in the said criminal case, were minor
in nature and after being formally arrested in the said case, he had been
released on bail on the same day, therefore he did not mention about the
same in his Attestation-cum-Verification Form and the impugned order
disqualifying him for the allotment of Regimental Number after his selection
to the said post, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and the same deserves
to be set aside. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon
Commissioner of Police and Others vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011(4) SCC 644
(SC); Rajesh vs. Union of India & Others 2017(1) PLR 487 (P&H)(SB);
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….5….
Dharmender Singh vs.Director General of Police, Haryana and others
(CWP No. 4916 of 2005 decided on 24.04.2006) (P&H) (DB); Yogendra
Kumar Sharma vs. State & Ors, 2010(8) SLR 282 (Rajasthan); Devender
Kumar Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2012(25) S.C.T. 814
(Delhi)(DB); Brajesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011(17)
S.C.T.291 & Surendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2010(22) S.C.T.
507 (Allahabad)(SB) and Jitender vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP
No. 20007 of 2017 decided on 09.01.2019) (P&H) (SB).
8. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that in Column
No.13(a) & (b) in the Attestation Form Annexure P-5, the queries regarding
his having ever been arrested and prosecuted were required to be answered
by the petitioner but he intentionally and deliberately concealed the factum
of the above-said criminal case having been registered against him and his
arrest and prosecution in the same and answered both the said queries in
negative and his acquittal in the said case vide the judgment Annexure P-1
does not suffice at all to plausibly and logically explain the non-disclosure of
the afore-said facts by him and in these circumstances, the provisions of
Rule 12.18(2) of the PPR become fully applicable to his case and thus,
impugned order Annexure P-7 has rightly been passed against him in view
thereof.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for his recruitment to the post
of Male Constable in pursuance of Advertisement Annexure P-2 as notified
by the HSSC and had been selected for the same. It is also undisputed that
prior to his applying for the said post, the above-mentioned criminal case
had been registered against him although he had been subsequently acquitted
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….6….
therein vide the judgment Annexure P-1. However, while filling up the
Attestation-cum-Verification Form Annexure P-5, the following two queries,
as contained in column/Clause 13 therein, were to be answered by him :-
“…..13 (i)
(a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No…”
A perusal of Annexure P-5 reveals that he had answered both the said
queries in negative. Though in this petition, he has tried to justify his said
answers by pleading that he had studied in the schools in the rural areas
throughout and that in the said criminal case as registered against him, the
offences alleged to have been committed by him were minor in nature and
therefore, he misunderstood the intent of these queries and did not disclose
about the same while answering the said queries but however, none of these
explanations cogently justifies the said omission on his part because in case
he had studied in the schools in the rural areas, even then this Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that at the time of filling up his Application Form
Annexure P-3 for the said post, he has categorically mentioned therein that
he did his Graduation (B.Sc) from M.D.U, Rohtak. Hence, it does not lie in
his mouth at all to contend that he could not properly understand/construe
the intent of the said queries for the above-mentioned reason. Further, even
if for the sake of arguments, the offences involved in the said criminal case
are presumed to be minor in nature, even then the fact remains that vide the
said Query 13(b), he was simply asked to disclose as to whether he had ever
been prosecuted and the factum of his acquittal in the said case vide
judgment Annexure P-1, itself speaks volumes of the fact that he had been
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….7….
prosecuted and had faced the trial in the said criminal case. It being so, the
afore-said omission on his part in disclosing the actual state of affairs
regarding his implication, arrest and trial in the said criminal case while
filling up Attestation-cum-Verification Form Annexure P-5, can be safely
held to be the concealment of true and material facts by him from the
competent authority.
10. Rule 12.18(2) of PPR (Haryana amended Rule, 2015) provides
as under:-
“The candidate shall disclose the fact regarding
registration of FIR or criminal complaint against him for
any offence under any law along-with the current status of
such case in application form and verification cum
attestation form irrespective of the final outcome of the
case. Non-disclosure of such information shall lead to
disqualification of the candidature out rightly, solely on
this ground.”
Thus, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of the
above-said Rule and therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-7 cannot be
termed to be illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable.
11. To add to it, the police force is a disciplined force requiring
higher standards of character and integrity of its members because their job
profile, at all rungs of the ladder of the service, requires them to protect the
citizens and to upkeep and maintain the law and order in the State. A three
Judges’ Bench of the Apex Court has made the following observations in
“Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471:-
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….8….
“x x x x
30.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate
as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
criminal case, whether before or after entering into
service must be true and there should be no suppression
or false mention of required information.
30.2 While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special circumstances of
the case, if any, while giving such information.
30.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
x x x x”
In view of these observations, it is quite explicit while taking a
decision in the eventuality of a candidate having suppressed or having
provided false information regarding his conviction, acquittal or arrest or
pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after joining the service, the
employer shall/is required to take the Government orders/instructions/rules,
applicable to the employee, into consideration. The impugned order
Annexure P-7 has been passed in view of the above-discussed Rule 12.18(2)
of PPR which as discussed earlier, is fully applicable to the case of the
petitioner.
12. The observations as made in Commissioner of Police (supra);
Rajesh (supra); Yogendra Kumar Sharma (supra); Dharmender Singh
(Supra); Devender Kumar Yadav (supra); Brajesh Singh (supra);
Surendra Yadav (supra) and Jitender (supra) are of no avail to the
petitioner to substantiate his claim in the present writ petition in view of the
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Civil Writ Petition No.17755 of 2020 ….9….
afore-cited observations as made by a three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and also of the fact that the Civil
Appeal No.2688 of 2007 preferred by the Director General of Police,
Haryana & Ors against the order passed in Dharmender Singh (Supra) has
been allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said order has been set
aside.
13. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, it follows that this
petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, it deserves dismissal.
Resultantly, the same stands dismissed accordingly.
22nd April, 2021. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether Reportable? Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 12:00:59 :::
Comments