1. Divergent and conflicting views taken by this Tribunal on the requirement of issuance of notice and hearing the concerned police official before showing him the exit door for his non-disclosure of alleged involvement in a criminal case has necessitated constitution of this Full Bench.
2. The bare minimum facts for determining the controversy in issue that may be noted at this stage reveal that Rajiv Tomar, the applicant herein, applied for appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2005. Having cleared the physical and medical test as also written examination and interview/personality test, he was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 28.3.2006 and was sent for training at Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi. While undergoing training, he was served with an order dated 29.8.2006 terminating his services applying provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965).
Aggrieved, the applicant made representation dated 5.10.2006 praying reconsideration of his case and to quash and set aside the order terminating his services dated 29.8.2006 on variety of grounds, the primary being that he was acquitted before the date of application seeking appointment and, therefore, non mentioning of the same could be termed as an error and not a wilful concealment. The respondents dealt with the representation of the applicant but rejected the same vide order dated 25.1.2007, mentioning therein that he had concealed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case FIR No. 364/1995 under Section 323/324/354/504 IPC & 3(i) SC/ST Act, PS Baraut (UP) in the relevant column of the application as well as attestation forms despite clear instructions given at the top of the forms that giving any kind of false information or concealing any facts would be treated as disqualification. It was also mentioned that he had furnished a false undertaking mentioning therein that 'You have not concealed any facts in the application form as well as in the attestation form and you have neither been involved in any criminal case nor been arrested/prosecuted/convicted/bound over/ interned/externed as well as not dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case'. It was further mentioned that the certificate/declaration submitted by him was found to be false and, therefore, his services were liable to be terminated. It was also mentioned that under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, there would be no need to give show cause notice.
The respondents also made mention of a decision in CWP No. 1621/1996 in the matter of Shankar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi of the Delhi High Court holding that if a person gives false declaration that he has never been arrested or involved in a criminal case, the department has a right to terminate his services on the ground of concealment of facts and not disclosing information as required from him.
3. When the matter came up before one of us [Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)] on 30.11.2007, after briefly noting the contentions raised by the learned Counsel representing the parties, the learned Member observed, thus: 7. We are getting number of these kind of cases where services of individuals have been terminated in Delhi Police on the ground that the individual had concealed the material fact regarding pendency of criminal case or that he was prosecuted in a criminal case. In some cases, respondents have issued show cause notice, while in others, their services have been terminated without giving any show cause notice under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary) Service Rules. Some Benches have taken the view that show cause notice ought to have been given before terminating the services. In O.A. No. 604/2005 decided on 14.3.2007 (Shri Krishan Pal Singh v. NCT of Delhi) while some Benches have taken the view that there is no need to give show cause notice because there was a clear cut warning given at the top of application form itself [O.A. No. 365/1998 decided on 9.2.1999 Zile Singh v. Commissioner of Police]. In OA No. 318/2007 (Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.) Single Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mrs.
Neena Ranjan, it has been held that acquittal in a criminal trial obliterates the stigma of involvement in a criminal offence.
The Hon'ble Member partially touched the controversy on merits, but in ultimate analysis, referred the matter to the Full Bench, primarily for the reason that on the issue with regard to requirement of issuing notice before terminating services of a police official there were divergent and conflicting views within the Benches of this Tribunal.
The other reason noted in the order for referring the matter to the Full Bench is that in another OA No. 502/2007 the Division Bench had already referred the questions to be decided by the Full Bench, which may have some bearing on this case as well. The questions that were framed to be answered by the Full Bench in OA No. 502/2007 are as under: (A) When a criminal case can be said to be pending against a person under law, particularly in the context of service jurisprudence.
(B) Whether pendency of any case of whatever nature it may be and whatever the facts and circumstances of the case, can become a ground to keep in abeyance appointment of a citizen who has been selected after due process of selection. To illustrate, if a candidate seeking recruitment is involved in petty offences under IPC or such offences which are tried summarily involving hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country, like motor vehicle challans, can his candidature be kept in abeyance? Whether the nature of offence and the facts leading to commission thereof would be a relevant factor? Would the authorities not like to see the bare minimum facts of the allegations made against a candidate in the offence alleged to have been committed by him? (C) Whether it is possible to find some middle path where the interest of the candidate may be vouchsafed without any adverse effect in the police discipline? The questions that were framed by the learned Single Bench for adjudication of this case read as follows: (A) Whether it is necessary to issue Show Cause Notice in cases where candidature is being cancelled or services terminated on the ground of concealment of facts regarding pendency/involvement in criminal case? (B) Whether in these circumstances when he was already acquitted in the criminal case, can it be said that he had tried to seek entry in Government service by deceitful? (C) Whether the department could have denied appointment to the applicant without recording a finding that he is unfit for being retained in Delhi Police on account of his involvement in the criminal case after examining the judgment in the criminal case? (D) Whether acquittal in criminal case would not obliterate the stigma? Whether non mentioning of a criminal case, in which he had already been acquitted can be said to be so serious that he should be deprived of his appointment given to him after due selection? This OA as also OA No. 502/2007 came up for hearing before this Tribunal, but the learned Counsel were ad idem that the questions framed in OA No. 502/2007 were different and would have no bearing upon the controversy and questions framed in this case. That being so, this case was separated from OA No. 502/2007. Insofar as reference in OA No.502/2007 is concerned, the same has been answered and the matter has been directed to be listed before appropriate Division Bench for decision on merits.
4. The only question out of four questions framed by the learned Single Member, reproduced above, that would need immediate attention is question (A), as concededly the other questions framed by the learned Member are either based upon facts or are covered by various decisions of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
5. Concealment or suppression of involvement in a criminal case, if proved, it is not in dispute, will entail, as the case may be, cancellation of candidature or dismissal/removal from service. The question, however, is as to whether before passing such an order the concerned police official should be put to notice. We may straightway refer to circular No. 3747-3900/SIP PHQ dated 24.2.1998 dealing with the issue. The same reads as follows: This is in continuation of para 4 of this HQrs. Circular No. 1/97/SIP issued vide endst No. 20648-700/P.Br.(PHQ) (SIP) dated 24.07.1997 regarding dealing with the cases of concealment of facts about involvement of candidates in criminal cases or giving wrong information at the time of filling up application forms as well as attestation form or submitting forged /bogus documents for recruitment in Delhi Police.
2. All such cases are required to be decided by the appointing authority as under: (i) In the event of declaration or document found false/bogus before giving appointment, the candidature should be cancelled by issuing proper Show Cause Notice to the candidate.
(ii) In case the declaration /document is found false/ bogus after appointment but before declaring the individual confirmed, his services should be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the C.C.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 by issuing a Show Cause Notice to the individual and the passing a suitable order after considering his response to the Show Cause Notice.
(iii) In case the declaration /document is found false /bogus after declaring the individual confirmed in his appointment, he should be dealt with departmentally as per Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules-1980 and then finally dismissed/removed from service.
In the event of any forgery/cheating or any documents found false/bogus at any stage, besides taking action as mentioned above, a criminal case should be also be got registered against the individual concerned as per law.
4. The cases of the above cited categories do not attract Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India as already clarified in PHQ circular issued vide endst No. 29391-471/CR-1 dated 29.12.93.
The circular aforesaid deals with cases of concealment of facts about involvement of candidates in criminal cases or giving wrong information at the time of filling up application forms as well as attestation form or submitting forged/bogus documents for recruitment in Delhi Police.
In case the concealment of criminal case or submission of forged/bogus documents is found before appointment, the candidature has to be cancelled by issuing proper show cause notice. In case, however, the declaration/document is found false/bogus after appointment but before declaring the individual confirmed, his services should be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965, but by issuing a show cause notice and passing suitable order after considering his response to the show cause notice. In case declaration/document is found false/bogus after declaring the individual confirmed in his appointment, he should be dealt with departmentally as per Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and then finally dismissed/ removed from service.
It is specifically mentioned in para 4 of the circular that in the type of cases dealt in the circular, provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, as already clarified in PHQ circular dated 29.12.2993, would not be attracted. The circular mentioned above deals with cases of concealment of facts about involvement of candidates in criminal cases or giving wrong information at the time of filling up application as well as attestation forms or submitting forged/bogus documents. In Clauses 2(i), (ii) and (iii), reference is to both declaration and documents which may be found to be false or bogus. A conjoint reading of the entire circular would leave no one in doubt that Clauses 2(i), (ii) and (iii) are applicable, be it a case of concealment of facts about involvement in criminal cases or submission of forged/bogus documents for recruitment in Delhi Police. In our considered view, the circular aforesaid is in tune with the settled proposition of law on the issue. If the information with regard to involvement in criminal case is false or it is a case of submission of forged/bogus documents and the same has been found out before a person is employed/given appointment, a show cause notice would suffice. If, however, appointment has been given, but before a person is confirmed, resort can be had to Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965, but before that show cause notice has to be issued and response to the same, if any, has to be considered. However, when the person concerned is confirmed in service, only a regular departmental enquiry may result into penalty of dismissal/removal against him. The circular is comprehensive dealing with all situations, i.e., when a person may be only a candidate; when he may be a temporary employee; or when he may be a confirmed employee.
We are of the considered view that the Government cannot be permitted to deviate or itself call in question its own policy decision. That apart, we find from several hundred cases that have come before us that whereas, in some cases the circular has been applied by issuing show cause notice in the case of cancellation of candidature, as also when the services of a police official may be temporary, in some other cases resort to cancellation of candidature or removal from service has been made without issuing any notice. This pick-and-choose policy is totally discriminatory and would be against the provisions contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Having come thus far, we may only mention that even though some times it may seemingly appear that a false declaration with regard to involvement in a criminal case has been made, the same may appear to be a totally inadvertent mistake or there may be such explanation which may have no scope even for a pin to go but for to accept the same. To illustrate, we may refer to a decision recorded by us in OA No.2654/2006 decided on 5.10.2007 in the matter of Bharat Ratn v.Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant therein was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police should not be cancelled, as on receipt of his character antecedents report, it was revealed that a criminal case bearing FIR No. 422/99 under Section 147/447/427/379 IPC was registered against him. It was also mentioned in the notice that on investigation, the said case was found to be false and a final report was filed in the court of JM-1st by local police. Reference in the show cause notice was also to another case which was a complaint filed by one Rajender under Section 203 CrPC, upon which a criminal case bearing FIR No. 115/2005 under Section 447/427/379 IPC was also registered against him. Later on, after investigation of the case the facts were found false and final report dated 14.6.2005 was filed in the concerned court and no challan had been filed in both the cases. It was, however, mentioned in the notice that on scrutiny of application and attestation forms filled by the applicant on 1.7.2005 and 21.12.2005 respectively, it was found that he did not disclose the facts of his involvement in the above two criminal cases in the relevant columns and concealed these facts deliberately by mentioning 'NO' despite clear warning given at the top of the application form and attestation form that furnishing of any false information would be treated as disqualification. The applicant responded to the show cause notice aforesaid stating therein that he himself had no knowledge about the two criminal cases mentioned in the show cause notice. He further stated that he was never summoned by any court, nor he had received any information from any source whatsoever, and that he had neither been detailed nor arrested by the police at any point of time. Despite his explanation as mentioned above, his candidature was cancelled. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the material placed before us, we observed as follows: 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and particularly the report of Collector and district Magistrate dated 31.05.2006, we are of the considered view that the applicant may not be having any knowledge of the two FIRs lodged against him and others. In such circumstances, when the applicant would not know himself that any FIR had been lodged against him, it was not possible for him to have made a mention of the same. Surely, he was not arrested, nor in the circumstances mentioned above, he could have been said to be involved in any criminal case. It is a matter of common knowledge that a false criminal case reported by someone which, after investigation, is found to be false, may not come to notice of the person against whom the complaint or FIR is lodged. In the case of the applicant, it appears to have exactly happened in that manner.
6. From the pleadings of the parties and the relevant documents, as fully detailed above, it is absolutely clear that the applicant would not know himself that he was named as accused in the FIR and criminal complaint filed by someone. That being so, he could not have mentioned the same in his application or attestation forms.
7. Filing of false FIRs by interested elements is common phenomena. If in a given case some one may try to involve his adversary or one against whom he may have some animosity, in a false case and an FIR may have been registered, but on investigation, the police may come to a firm conclusion that it was a false case and the accused named therein was victim of frame-up, they may file cancellation report. In such an event, it is possible that the person accused in the FIR may never come to know that some one had lodged an FIR against him, as he was at no point of time even interrogated by police. Could, in such circumstances, the applicant make a mention of his involvement in a criminal case and if such a mention was not made, could his candidature be cancelled? The answer has to be an emphatic NO. We may refer to another decision recorded by us in OA No. 1007/2007 decided on 23.10.2007 in the matter of Satya Narayan Meena v. Union of India and Ors. Brief facts of the said case reveal that the applicant therein, when a juvenile aged only 12 years, although wrongly mentioned as 14 years, was involved in petty cases of theft of wrist watch. He was given in the custody of his father. There was no trial conducted against him, having been dealt under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
Twelve years thereafter, he successfully competed for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, but before he could be appointed, pursuant to a show cause notice issued to him his candidature was cancelled for having concealed his involvement in the theft case aforesaid. The applicant, in the first instance, filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which granted interim protection to him on 24.5.2007 by directing the respondents to keep one post reserved. The matter ultimately came to be disposed of by this Tribunal. While dealing with the provisions of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the time lag between the involvement of the applicant in the criminal case and his selection as Constable, we held as follows: 20. We are of the considered opinion that if the record of conviction of juvenile has to be removed, and that too within the period of limitation or within a reasonable time which shall not be more than six months to a year, after his conviction the same could be only with the object that the conviction of a delinquent would not come in his way in securing a government job. Any other interpretation of Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Act of 2000 would not only run counter to the Object and Reasons of Act of 2000 but also plain and simple interpretation of Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of Act of 2000.
21. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that the nation and the society owe a duty to rehabilitate those who might have fallen on bad ways at some weak moment of their lives. If reformed, the stigma of conviction, particularly when it may be for an offence which is petty, should not continue unabated for the rest of the life of a person. It is not unknown that when reformed, either because of reformatory measures that may be taken or when one's own conscious may guide one to completely change his ways, some people not only follow the ordinary guidelines or principles as settled by the society, but become totally pious and excel in all walks of life. It would be a travesty of justice if the law and the society may not give any chance to such people to come into main stream and contribute in advancement of the nation. We are, in the present case, however, concerned only with those to whom the law consciously would like to rehabilitate. We are of the considered view that the Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2000 read with Section 19 thereof would clearly suggest the intention of the Legislature in not debarring a juvenile for securing a Government job for the rest of his life. We may only further mention that in the present case, the applicant was involved in three petty cases of theft twelve years prior when he was selected on the post of constable and was given in supervision to his father. It would be too iniquitous and unjust not to rehabilitate a juvenile who was of tender years at the time of the crime and may not be himself knowing what he was doing was wrong.
8. We have only given few illustrations, where despite the involvement of a candidate in criminal case and his non-disclosure of the said fact in the relevant forms, there may be complete justification furnished by him and, therefore, cancellation of the notice or continuance in the job, as the case may be. No straitjacket formula can be laid as the explanation to a show cause notice shall have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. To conclude, we may observe that the explanation furnished by a person, if he is issued a show cause notice, may be, in given facts and circumstances of the case, wholly acceptable. Surely, in such a situation, a citizen cannot be deprived of obtaining a public employment and his fate thus sealed to secure a government job for his life. It is once again settled proposition of law that principles of natural justice of audi alteram partem are straightway attracted where the civil rights of a person are adversely affected. Civil consequences' covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sridhar S/o Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Ors. 1990 SCC (L&S) 600 observed as follows: It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without "earing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appointee (appellant) to hold the post. That right cannot be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void.In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court Application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person. No decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. 'Civil consequences' covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Civil rights' are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country...they include...rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.... Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice.
Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.
It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly. The rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. The substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and 'reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual.
9. A Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 604/2005 decided on 14.3.2007 in the matter of Kishan Pal Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. also referred to by the learned single Member in the order of reference, had an occasion to deal with similar situation as the one in hand. Constable Kishan Pal Singh had challenged an order dated 7.7.2004 whereby his services were terminated under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965, as also order dated 27.1.2005 by which his representation for reinstatement was turned down on the ground that he had concealed the fact of involvement in a criminal case intentionally which would amount to misleading the department. In an elaborate judgment dealing with the entire case law as may be available on the date when the case aforesaid was decided, the Division Bench came to the following conclusion: 62. In the light of above, we ascertain that the termination of the applicant, which is founded on misconduct though internal inquiries have revealed non-disclosure of criminal case in the relevant application form and the memo issued inter-departmentally, non-disclosure of criminal case is not the motive but the sole ground to dispense with the services of the applicant, which cannot be countenanced without following the process of law. The orders passed by the respondents terminating the services of the applicant are not only punitive but also stigmatic as well.
A single Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 318/2007 decided on 18.9.2007 in the matter of Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. also referred to by the learned single Member in the reference order, dealt with the same issue on identical facts. Placing reliance upon the circular dated 24.2.1998 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another v. Jagdish Chand JT 1995 (2) 108, the conclusion arrived at is that 'In view of this departmental order of 24.2.1998 and after going through various judicial pronouncements, it becomes clear that though the order of termination is an innocuous simpliciter one, yet nothing precludes this Court in the matter of termination of service of a probationer under CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 to lift the veil and to examine the circumstances preceding post-termination. Though applicant admits non-disclosure of fact of involvement in a criminal case in which he was acquitted, yet an acquittal in a criminal trial obliterates the stigma of involvement in a criminal offence. If the decision of the trial court acquitting the accused is on merits and has not been appealed against, it attains finality. As a result thereof, what is obliterated is the factum of FIR, proceedings in the trial court, etc.' Whereas, we may not agree with the later part of the observation quoted above with regard to acquittal resulting into obliterating the stigma of involvement in a criminal case, the earlier observation that the court ought to lift the veil and to examine the circumstances preceding post-termination, are absolutely in tune with the law on subject.
10. Ms. Renu George, learned Counsel representing the respondents, however, during the course of arguments has relied upon decision of a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in CWP No. 1621/1996 decided on 22.9.2006 in the matter of Shankar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the short judgment recorded by the learned single Judge, what all is relevant reads as follows: If the person gives a false declaration that he has never been arrested or involved in a criminal case, the Department/Management has a right to terminate his services on the grounds of concealment of facts and not disclosing information as required by him. No enquiry was necessary in this case because there was no dispute about the facts. Moreover, the petitioner was only a temporary employee on probation. His services could be terminated without assigning any reason during the probation period if his work and conduct was not satisfactory or he was not suitable for the organization.
The judgment relied upon gives no reasons except that because there was no dispute about the facts or that the services of probationer can be terminated without assigning any reason. No arguments were addressed before the learned single Judge that when the order may have civil consequences and adversely affects a citizen and further that it may be stigmatic and punitive, whether enquiry would be necessary. Circular dated 24.2.1998 was not even referred. The judgment of the learned single Judge would not present a binding decision being per incuriam.
The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court is binding upon all courts and tribunals in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution, but if the decision may be sans an issue involved in a case debated and decided, the same has to be treated as sub silentio and would thus not be binding. In the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel representing the respondents, there is no discussion even with regard to the order being punitive arising from an alleged misconduct.
11. Division Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 365/1998 decided on 9.2.1999 in the matter of Zile Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. taking a divergent view, also mentioned by the learned Member in the reference order, no doubt supports the contention raised by the learned Counsel representing the respondents. We have carefully gone though the judgment of this Tribunal in Zile Singh (supra). It may be noted that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is based upon an earlier decision in OA No. 1667/1997 decided on 5.12.1997 in the matter of Subodh Singh v. Union of India and Anr. One of the Members deciding OA No. 365/1998 Zile Singh (supra) was a Member of the said Bench. It appears that the Tribunal while deciding OA No. 1667/1997 as also OA No. 365/1998 placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Civil Appeal No.13231/1996 decided on 4.10.1996 (1996) 11 SCC 605. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the Division Bench have been quoted in the judgment itself. The same read thus: 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 physically found 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.
It appears that in the matter of Sushil Kumar (supra), no plea of issuing notice to the employee and hearing him in the matter was at all raised. The case was decided on facts only. Also, there was no debate or adjudication on applicability of the circular dated 24.2.1998.
12. In view of our observations as made above, whereas, we reiterate the law laid down in Kishan Pal Singh (OA No. 604/2005) (supra) and Amit Kumar (OA No. 318/2007) (supra), the observation with regard to no requirement of notice and hearing the applicant in Zile Singh (OA No.365/1998) is overruled.
13. In view of the discussion made above, the only question i.e.
question (A) is answered to say that be it a case of cancellation of candidature or removal from service on the ground that the concerned employee had concealed the factum of his involvement in criminal case, a show cause notice has to be given and orders passed thereafter while considering the reply that may be given by the concerned employee.
14. Let the matter be now listed before appropriate Bench for decision on merits.