Asha Menon JUDGMENT
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 08th February 2019 and the order in appeal dated 09th July 2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 3 respectively. Petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service to the post of Constable in CISF with all the consequential benefits.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of constable in CISF on 6th August 2015 and upon successfully completing the basic training, he was given posting at URI-1, J & K as a Constable on permanent basis on 15th February, 2016.
4. He further states that on the basis of the report submitted by the learned District Magistrate, Khagaria regarding criminal antecedent of the Petitioner, the Respondent no. 1 terminated the service of the Petitioner by way of the impugned order.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the termination order dated 8th February 2019, Respondent no. 1 alleged that while filling up the questionnaire and attestation form on 11th September, 2014, the Petitioner had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case that had been registered against him under Section 366A IPC.
6. He contends that the Respondents failed to appreciate that vide judgment dated 17th July 2014 in P.S. CASE no. 186/2010 passed by the Sessions judge, the Petitioner had been acquitted of all the charges even prior to applying for the post of constable with the Respondents. He states that due to lack of legal knowledge, the Petitioner had inadvertently not disclosed about the criminal case filed against him in the past. He emphasises that on the date of filling the application, no case was pending against the Petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents states that the Petitioner's services had been terminated not on account of criminal antecedent, but on account of suppression of facts in the questionnaire and attestation form.
8. He emphasises that both in the questionnaire as well as in attestation form, there were specific questions-as to whether the applicant had ever been prosecuted and whether any FIR had ever been lodged against him in the past. He contends that as the Petitioner had suppressed the information with regard to his involvement in the criminal case in both the questionnaire as well as in the attestation form, his services had been terminated on 08th February, 2019 based on the decision of the Standing Screening Committee taken in the light of the Policy/Guidelines issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 01st February, 2012 and judgment/order dated 21st July, 2016 of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. UOI & Ors; MANU/SC/0803/2016 : (2016) 8 SCC 471.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) considered the difference of opinion between various Benches of the Supreme Court and laid down guidelines as to when suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form with regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or as to pendency of a criminal case would warrant termination of services. The conclusion of the Three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by ........