Judgment:
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner was selected as a constable and was sent for training. At the time of filling his form, a declaration was required to be given by the petitioner, which he did, stating therein that he was not involved in any criminal proceedings. The respondents made an enquiry and found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal proceeding under Section 307 IPC in case crime No. 27 of 1997. Consequently, the respondents issued an order dated 4.11.99 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition contending that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and did not commensurate with the misconduct. Further, the petitioner was absolved in that criminal proceedings and was acquitted by the Court. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201.
2. In my opinion, the said judgment cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in view of the successive pronouncements given by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Further, the decision in Qamrul Hoda's case is no longer a good law as held in Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. decided on 16.5.2005 in wit petition No. 39418 of 2005.
3. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar : (1996)11SCC605 , the Supreme Court held that the concealment of involvement in the criminal proceeding in the declaration form and subsequent absolvement in the criminal proceedings will not condone the act of misrepresentation. The Court held that the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed in service is relevant and not the result of/the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held-
It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.
4. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav 2003 (3) SCC 306, the Supreme Court held-
The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify that character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 not find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature.
5. Similar view was again expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. and Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu : (2005)2SCC746 .
6. Further, a division bench of this Court in Rajesh Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. : 2003(1)AWC294 has again held the same view.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.