Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for petitioner and Sri Deepak Verma, Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, respondents 1 to 4.
2. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Border Security Force on 5.3.2002. He completed his training in the month of December, 2002 and was posted as Constable in 14th Battalion in Punjab. On 28.6.2002, petitioner was called by Additional Deputy Director General of Police/Commandant STC, Training Centre, North Bengal, Baikunthour, New Jalpai Guri. The Commandant made enquiries from petitioner, whether any criminal case is pending against him or he has been sent to Jail. The petitioner replied to both the questions in negative. The petitioner was also asked whether he had made any false declaration in his enrolment form. The petitioner denied that he had made any such false declaration. By an order dated 17.1.2003 passed by respondent No. 4, petitioner's services have been terminated. The order states that petitioner was tried by Summary Security Force Court on 17.1.2003 for an offence committed by him under Section 23 of the BSF Act for 'Making at the time of enrolment a wilfully false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment, which was put to him by the Enrolment Officer, before whom appeared for the purpose of his enrolment'. Petitioner was found guilty for the charge and awarded punishment, 'To be dismissed from service'. The sentence of the Court was promulgated to him on 17.1.2003 and he was struck off the strength of the Centre with effect from 17.1.2003.
3. In Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that on 25.1.2003, certain documents were given to him including enrolment form, copy of the letter dated 27.3.2002 for verification of petitioner's character, copy of the letter dated 6.6.2003 by the District Magistrate. Gorakhpur, copy of the report dated 28.6.2002, copy of the proceedings before the Commandant on 28.6.2003 and the copy of the statement of PW-1, and the copy of report of Local Intelligence Unit dated 9.5.2002. The District Magistrate an verification of enrolment form reported, that a case under Sections 323. 504 and 325 IPC in Case Crime No. 518 of 2001 is pending against petitioner, this report was made in pursuance of the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on 22.5.2002.
4. Sri Arvind Srivastava, Counsel for petitioner contends that the proceedings of Summar Security Force Court never took place in presence of petitioner and that petitioner was not permitted to give his reply, submit his defence and to cross-examine PW-1. He submits that a false F.I.R. dated 30.6.2001 was registered on complaint of Sri Phool Chand against Ram Laut, Behari, Lallan and Pappu alias Jogindra. The allegations were totally false and had no concern with the petitioner. Petitioner was preparing for PCS examination in District Mirzapur and was not even present on the date of occurrence. He submits that Ram Laut has three sons namely, Ramesh, Pappu alias Jogindra and the petitioner which is evident from the Kutumb Register enclosed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition. Copy of the report of District Magistrate or Senior Superintendent of Police was not given to petitioner and without giving any charge-sheet petitioner was dismissed, violating principles of natural justice. He further submits that enrolment form provided five instances in Clause 12 that petitioner had ever been arrested nor any case has been registered against petitioner or he ever been punished or bound over interned, convicted, arrested, prosecuted or otherwise dealt with under any law in force in India or out side. It is contended that petitioner has never been arrested, prosecuted, convicted and dealt with under law in force in India and no case is pending against him.
5. By an order dated 27.2.2003, this Court issued notice for service upon the newly respondents namely, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur and District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and directed them to file counter-affidavit to meet the allegations made in the writ petition with regard to generating false report against petitioner.
6. Sri Awanis Kumar Awasthi, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and Sri Virendra Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur have filed their affidavits verified on 29.3.2003. The District Magistrate in his affidavit has stated in Para 8 that the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 27.3.2002 directed answering respondent to verify the character and antecedents of Sri Raj Kumar, the petitioner and submit report to him. Acting upon the said letter of the then District Magistrate, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur got the character and antecedents of Raj Kumar son of Ram Laut verified from Police Records and Local Intelligence Unit, and on the basis of the report dated 22.5.2002 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur to then District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, the then District Magistrate, Gorakhpur submitted a verification report vide letter dated 6.6.2002. Sri Virendra Kumar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur has stated in Paragraph 8 of his affidavit that verification of character and antecedents of petitioner was conducted by Police/LIU and a report was submitted that case Crime No. 518 of 2001 under Sections 323, 504 and 325, IPC has been registered against Sri Raj Kumar at Police Station, Shahjanwan and a criminal case is pending against him in Court. Relying upon this report, Senior Superintendent of Police submitted a report dated 22.5.2002 to the District Magistrate. In Paragraph 9 it is submitted that a non-cognizable Report No. 55 of 2001 was lodged by Sri Phool Chandra in Police Station Shahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur. On the basis of said report, Case Crime No. 518 of 2002, under Sections 323 and 325, IPC was registered against Ram Laut son of Dukhi, Bechan son of Ram Jatan, Lallan son of Shiv Balak, Pappu son of Ram Laut. The matter was investigated and during the investigation it was found that Pappu son of Ram Laut named in the aforesaid non-cognizable report, was also known as Raj Kumar alias Pappu son of Ram Laut and that the aforesaid offence was prima facie found to have been committed by the aforesaid accused persons and accordingly they were challend and a Charge-sheet No. 109 of 2001 was filed in the Court. During investigation, the accused, petitioner Raj Kumar has also made his statement before the Investigating Officer. The charge-sheet as well as various Parchas No. 2, 3 and 4 prepared by the Investigating Officer, have been annexed to the counter-affidavit. Petitioner, Raj Kumar surrendered before the ACJM-II, Gorakhpur and was enlarged on bail. In this regard Photostat copy of 'Hajri Va Jamanat Suchana' dated 21.9.2001 was also filed with the affidavit. He has further stated that the questionnaire obtained by petitioner is of no help. The charges were framed against Pappu alias Yogendra. Since, the charge-sheet was submitted against Raj Kumar alias Pappu son of Ram Laut, therefore, Pappu mentioned in the charges is to be taken at Raj Kumar alias Pappu son of Ram Laut. The attention of the Court concerned to the aforesaid discrepancy was invited by the Police concerned vide application dated 1.12.2002 in which necessary action has been ordered by the Court. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur found it quite clear from the aforesaid documents and information that a criminal case registered against petitioner, is pending.
7. Counsel for petitioner took pains in trying to establish from the aforesaid documents and from the supplementary-affidavit that Ram Laut had three sons and that Pappu is petitioner's brother and that Raj Kumar has been wrongly described as 'Pappu'. He submits that it is case of false identity.
8. I have gone through the Kutumb Register, First Information Report, charge-sheet, application, purchase prepared by the Investigating Officer who also took statement of Raj Kumar alias Pappu. Although, the accused denied the allegations against them, the fact that Raj Kumar son of Ram Laut is an accused and was granted bail and has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid crime, cannot be doubted. The report of Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate are specific about the identity of petitioner as an accused in the aforesaid crime.
9. Sri Srivastava, further submitted that an extreme and harsh punishment has been given to the petitioner in terminating his services. According to him, even if may been taken, that Raj Kumar alias Pappu is facing trial, the nature of offence alleged to have been committed is trivial, and that the petitioner should not have been dismissed on this ground. According to him, petitioner is only an accused and has not been convicted of the offence so far.
10. Having heard Counsel for parties, I find that proceedings of Summary Security Force Court were held after the reports from District Magistrate was received by respondent No. 4. It was found that petitioner was charged with making willfully false statement in enrolment form. He was given the entire proceedings of Summary Security Force Court and after being punished he was struck off from the Centre. In the enrolment form, the petitioner had replied to Clause XII in negative, whereas he was facing criminal trial in which he was granted bail, and was not convicted. Petitioner has relied upon decisions in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1201; Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal and Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 247 and a Division Bench of this Court in Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2000) 1 ESC 688, as well as the judgment in Satish Kumar Shukla v. Union of India, (2002) 1 ESC (Alld) 69.
11. In all the aforesaid cases, the services of delinquents were terminated on the ground that at the time of recruitment, they were involved in criminal proceedings and they had made wrong statements. In Qamrul Hoda (supra), petitioner was found to have taken part in a students agitation against increase in fees and was tried under Sections 147/148/332/333/323/342/506/336/427/307, I.P.C. The Court found that no doubt petitioner did not give the correct facts while filling the declaration form, but human approach should be adopted and that he has already been punished for his fault, in the sense that his appointment as Constable has been held up for three years. In Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda (supra), the Court found after acquiring knowledge of the criminal prosecution the Bank had thought it fit to await for the decision of the criminal proceedings before taking action against the respondent. The Supreme Court further raised a caveat and held that the decision will not be treated as precedent in future. The Division Bench in Awadhesh Kumar Sharma (supra), has relied upon the decision of Qamrul Hoda's case and that in Satish Kumar Shukla (supra), it was found that the petitioner, belongs to rural area and had family enmity, and that the complaint resulted in amicable settlement between the parties. Petitioner really was not aware of the substance of the complaint and pleaded ignorance.
12. The question raised before this Court is whether a person joining the Armed Force of the Union, can be allowed to continue in employment after making a false declaration with regard to his character and antecedent. In Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar and Ors., 1997 SCC (L&S;) 492, a similar question was raised before Supreme Court arising from judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal. In this case, the admitted position was that the respondent appeared for recruitment for Police Service. He was found physically fit and passed written test, interview and was selected subject to character and antecedent verification. His antecedents on verification were not found to be desirable and his selection was cancelled. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted from offence punishable under Sections 304, 324 and 34 IPC, he could not be denied right of appointment to the post under the State. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, with following observations :
'The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? 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 important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under 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 focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.'
13. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, JT 2002 (2) SC 256, same view was taken. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is quoted as below:
'8. 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 the 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 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 was not to 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 has been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case, the respondent was to serve as a physical education teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a Teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impermissible age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set-aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, if he could not understand the contents of Column Nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that as per Para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.'
14. In the present case, petitioner had willfully made false declaration. He was subjected to proceeding of Summary Security Force Court in which he denied that he denied to the charge. His denial was found to be false. The procedure provided for Summary Security Force Court was duly followed. He was, as such, rightly dismissed from service.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed,