The Supreme Court today (July 23), while setting aside Gauhati High Court’s order reinstating a Constable (GD) in the CRPF whose termination was ordered for withholding any material information, reiterated that the benchmark for appointment in the Law Enforcement Agency should be stringent than in routine vacancies. (Crook Case)
Under the scanner was the appointment of the present respondent to the post of a Constable (GD) in the CRPF. He was asked to fill out the verification roll, asking the employees to state in clear terms whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted or whether any case was pending against them. It came with the warning that on account of furnishing any wrong information, the services would get terminated. The respondent replied in the negative.
Subsequently, a private party submitted a written complaint to the authorities saying that the respondent had deliberately withheld material information. The letter revealed two criminal cases which were registered against the respondent. Post that, he was sent a show-cause notice detailing the charges. However, he specifically denied those charges.
Following this, the Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and it was concluded that the respondent had deliberately concealed registration of two cases against him. As a result, an order was passed directing the respondent to be removed from service forthwith.
Challenging this, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. Therein, it was observed that there was no criminal case pending against the respondent at the time of filling the verification roll. It was also observed that the respondent was fairly young when the incident had taken place and there was possibility of his having committed an indiscretion while furnishing incorrect information in the verification roll. Thus, his reinstatement was ordered. The Division Bench also confirmed the same in an appeal. Hence, the present challenge.
After perusing the records, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the respondent was arrayed as a co-accused in the criminal case. He was taken into judicial custody and was granted bail by the trial Court. The Court pointed out that all this had transpired much before he was called upon to fill up the Verification Roll. In view of this, the Court refused to accept the respondent’s plea, saying that he had no knowledge of his implication in the criminal cases.
“Despite that, the respondent elected not to disclose the information pertaining to the aforesaid cases to the appellants and replied in the negative to the specific queries posed to him in the Verification Roll, as have been extracted above. He adopted the same stand even after a notice to show cause was issued to him by the appellants calling upon him to explain his conduct.,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that the respondent’s case (Crook Case) was not a clean acquittal because the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reliance was placed on a thread of precedents stressing on the importance of employees’ antecedents. These cases included Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limitedand Another v. Anil Kanwaria., LL 2021 SC 466. The Top had opined that even where there was a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged in suppression of material facts relating to a pending criminal case.
“The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust.”
Taking a cue from this, the Court observed that the respondent had complete knowledge of the registration of the FIR and pendency of the criminal cases. Despite that, he had wilfully withheld material information from the appellants.
“He had further misconducted himself when the appellants issued him a show-cause notice calling upon him to explain his position and falsely denied the allegations levelled against him in his reply to the notice to show cause that ultimately led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.,” the Court added.
With respect to the High Court’s observation of condoning the respondent’s indiscretion, the Court, borrowing its observation from the case of The State of MadhyaPradesh and Others v. Bhupendra Yadav., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 810, reiterated:
“24.…..The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large.”
Given these facts and circumstances, the Top Court opined that the High Court erred in its findings and the respondent did not deserve any latitude. Thus, the Court restored the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
Case details: Union of India & Others vs. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal, Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 507
