Case title: Shri Nomil Rana Vs The Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P. (C) 7385/2018
Decision on: February 29th, 2024
Quoram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Facts of the case
The issue in the case pertains to the termination of the service of the petitioner by the respondent Force on account of suppression of facts by the former.
Shri Nomil Rana, the Petitioner, who was enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), joined the Respondents Force (Senior Commandant, CISF) as a Constable after completion of his training. Subsequently, by an impugned order, he was terminated from the services of the respondents due to the suppression of a fact related to a Criminal and Atrocities Case. The representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order was rejected by the respondents. Further, a plea was filed before the Delhi High Court to set-aside the impugned termination order and thereby, directs the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, in the interest of justice.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
The Counsel submitted that the Criminal matter against the petitioner which was not disclosed in the Attestation Form was compromised between the parties before he joined the service. Moreover, the Allahabad High Court quashing the entire proceedings granted a stay in the Criminal Case stating that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the same. Further, he submitted that the Attestation Form, in which the material information related to pending Criminal Case is alleged to have been suppressed by the petitioner, was filled up by some other person and not the petitioner.
The Counsel contends that if asked, the petitioner would have definitely disclosed the facts to the person about the same and thus, there was no question of concealment of the material information. Therefore, in support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. He further, submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the services without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard which violated the Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the CISF Rules 2001.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
The Counsel submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the services due to the suppression of the material information specifically in Column 12 of the Attestation Form, wherein, the petitioner was asked to disclose any pending cases against him, for which he answered in negative. He submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the said petition as the Criminal Case though quashed, was pending against him at the time of filling the said form and contended that as such he had suppressed the material information by ignoring the warning.
The Counsel submitted that the suppression of material facts in a disciplined force which seeks to maintain high standards of integrity cannot be acceptable. He also relied on the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav and Satish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India to highlight the importance of furnishing the employee’s information on prosecution or conviction and the repercussions of suppressing the material details essential for their appointment.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The court observed that the Criminal Case against the petitioner was initiated in the year 2013 and quashed in October 2014, which was much later to the filling of the Attestation Form by the petitioner and as such it noted that there was no reason as to why the petitioner could not have revealed the details during his appointment. Hence, there was a clear case of concealment of material information made out against the petitioner, which led to the termination of his services by the respondents.
The bench asserted that the argument that petitioner did not fill the said form cannot be accepted as he had put his signature in conformity with the all the essential information given in the Form. The Court considering the plea for violation of principles of Natural Justice noted that every appointment is subject to character and antecedent verification of an employee. Hence, it observed that since in the present case the employee ignored the warning given in the said form and suppressed the factual information vital for his appointment he would be liable to be terminated from the services.
The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court case in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwariya case, wherein it was held that in a situation where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement or not disclosed the material facts or suppressed the material fact, therefore cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in the future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee.
The Delhi High Court disposing the petition held that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of termination on the ground of suppression of material information by the petitioner in the Attestation Form. It ruled that the suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by the petitioner, who is seeking appointment to a police post, has a bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
