Harilal E.K. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Pallipuram, Thiruvananthapuram, and Union of India represented by Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021** ## **- PETITIONER :** HARILAL E.K., AGED 27 YEARS S/O. HARIDASAN E.K, ERANHOLIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAINGOTTUPURAM, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.JAYARAM GIGI PAPPACHAN SARATH CHANDRAN K.B. ## **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 316. 2 *( UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001) * CORRECTED AS UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADDRESS OF R2 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2022 IN I.A.2/2022 IN WPC 12524/2021. BY ADV SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 2 :- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 12th day of July, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- - “i) Declare that mere pendency of criminal case will not deprive the petitioner of his indefeasible right for appointment and, thus, Exhibit P4 Final Report does not clothe the respondent authority to invoke and exercise the power to issue Exhibit P1 order. - ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction order quashing Exhibit P1 order. - iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1[st] respondent to allow the petitioner to re-join the post recruitment procedures at the Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF pursuant to a notification dated 21.7.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner's application was made in September, 2018. At the time of submission of the application, he was not involved in any criminal case. It is stated that the petitioner had qualified in the WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 3 :- selection and was issued with an appointment order on 15.2.2021. The petitioner reported to the Group Centre, Pallippuram on 17.3.2021 for the post recruitment procedure. It is stated that he revealed his involvement in a criminal case pursuant to an occurrence on 12.10.2018 and had stated that an FIR had been registered and the case was pending trial as C.C. No.414/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent, without issuing any notice, cancelled the petitioner's appointment, as per Ext.P1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by Ext.P5 judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam dated 3.3.2022, the petitioner stands honourably acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.. It is contended that the petitioner did not have any criminal case pending against him as on the date of submission of the application and on the occasion when he was required to disclose the pendency of any criminal case, he had done so on 17.3.2021. It is, therefore, contended that there is no suppression of any material fact by the petitioner and that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to appointment in pursuance to the appointment order dated 15.2.2021. WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 4 :- 4. The learned counsel also places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in **Avtar Singh** v **Union of India and others** [2016 (4) KHC 359] and submits that in the absence of any suppression of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner and in view of the fact that he now stands honourably acquitted, the respondents were not justified in having issued the impugned proceedings. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended therein that the petitioner had reported in the Group Centre, Pallippuram on 17.3.2021 to join the post of Constable (GD) and had been permitted to join by Ext.R1(a) joining report. It is stated that after the medical examination and while filling up of the character and antecedents verification roll, the petitioner disclosed that a case under various sections of the IPC has been registered against him at the Kunnamangalam Police Station for being involved in a clash at the Government Higher Secondary School, Peringolam, Kozhikode on 12.10.2018. It is submitted that in order to ascertain the facts, the GC CRPF had taken up the case with the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode District under intimation to the Station House Officer, Kunnamangalam Police Station and WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 5 :- Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) reports were obtained. It is further submitted that it was after considering Ext.R1(d) policy guidelines dated 1.2.2021 that the petitioner's appointment had been cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioner had produced a copy of the certificate of character and antecedents in a proforma as per Ext.R1(e) dated 25.2.2021, in which also, the involvement in the crime was concealed. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him, the action taken by the respondents is perfectly justified. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.R1(e), which is a certificate of character, filled up in the form provided does not contain any specific reference to the pendency of any criminal case and that the petitioner also did not fill up Ext.R1(e) personally. It is contended that the petitioner had not been required to state anything about the pendency of any criminal case against him after the submission of his application till he was required to sign the character and antecedents verification roll on the date of joining and that he had, at the first opportunity, informed the respondents about the pendency of the criminal case. It is submitted that there is WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 6 :- absolutely no suppression involved and that there is no such allegation in Ext.P1 either. 7. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record producing Ext.P5 judgment by which the petitioner stands acquitted. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is not in dispute before me that the occurrence which led to the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner was on 12.10.2018, that is, after he had submitted his application pursuant to the notification dated 21.7.2018. Thereafter, there was no occasion for the petitioner to inform the respondents about the pendency of the criminal case against him. Ext.R1(e) which is relied on by the respondents is a certificate of character which certifies that to the best of the knowledge of the signatory of the same, the petitioner bears reputable character and has no antecedent which renders him/her unsuitable for Government employment. This apparently is a certificate issued by one Easwari M, HSST (English), Government HSS, Peringolam. The petitioner apparently had not been required to submit any declaration with regard to pendency of any criminal case against him until 17.3.2021 when he was required to sign in the WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 7 :- character and antecedent verification roll after joining duty. On such requirement, the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him. 9. The Apex Court in **Avtar Singh** v. **Union of India and others** had considered the question of suppression of material information by a person involved in a criminal case. Considering the decisions on the point, the Apex Court had held at clause (10) of paragraph 30 as follows :- “(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.” 10. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another** v. **Anil Kanwariya** [Civil Appeal Nos.5743-5744 of 2021], **Union of India and others** v. **Methu Meda** [2021 (6) KHC SN 7 (SC)] and **State of Rajasthan and others** v. **Chetan Jeff** [Civil Appeal No.3116 of 2022]. WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 8 :- 11. Having considered the decisions relied on, I notice that all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents are with regard to specific cases where the incidents which led to the registration of criminal cases occurred before the application or verification had been made by the candidate concerned. The findings of the court in the said cases were to the effect that there were suppression of material facts by the applicants and therefore, the respondents were justified in terminating the services or in cancelling the appointments. 12. In the instant case, from the pleadings on record, it is clear that it was on the declaration made by the petitioner on joining duty that the respondents came to know about the pendency of the criminal case against him. The criminal case was not in existence as on the date of he submitted his application. There is no pleading on record that the respondents had either become aware of the pendency of the criminal case or that there was an opportunity given to the petitioner to disclose the pendency of the criminal case against him before 17.3.2021. Ext.R1(e) which is a certificate of character also does not specifically require the disclosure of the pendency of any criminal case as against the petitioner. WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 9 :- 13. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P1 which cancels the appointment of the petitioner is untenable and runs contrary to the findings of the Apex Court in **Avtar Singh's case.** Ext.R1(d) policy guidelines also provide that where charge sheet has been filed in a court of law in an offence involving moral turpitude and where the acquittal is honourable, there can be no bar to appointment. In the instant case, though a criminal case had been pending against the petitioner under Section 452 IPC also, the petitioner had clearly disclosed the fact at the first possible opportunity and thereafter, the petitioner has also, according to him, been honourably acquitted of the crime. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents should permit the petitioner to appear for joining duty on the basis of the appointment order dated 15.2.2021. The question whether the petitioner stands acquitted honourably by Ext.P5 shall be examined by the respondents and appropriate orders shall be passed in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** Jvt/14.7.2022 WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 10 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12524/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R.II-13/2021-ECV(SSC) DATED 13.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER TO CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT NO. R.II13/2021-EC-V (SSC) DATED 15.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECRUITING THE PETITIONER TO CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AS CONSTABLE (GD). - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 12.10.2018 IN CRIME NO. 657/2018 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 27.10.2019 FILED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO. 657/2018 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM. - Exhibit P5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2022 IN C.C.NO.414/2019 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KUNNAMANGALAM. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINING REPORT DATED 17/03/2021 OF THE PETITIONER IN CRPF Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/04/2021 SENT BY THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF CRPF PALLIPURAM TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/04/2021 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE ON BEHALF OF TH DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE SENT TO THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, CRPF, PALLIPURAM AS A RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT-R1(B) WP(C) NO.12524 OF 2021 -: 11 :- Exhibit R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERING CASES OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST CANDIDATES, THE EFFECT DATED 01/02/2012 Exhibit R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF CHARACTER ISSUED BY ONE EASWARI, M HSST (ENGLISH) GOVERNMENT HSS, PERINGOLAM IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER