2018 (2) TMI 1977 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination of services by Appointing Authority i.e. the Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli - termination of services on account of suppression of facts in the Attestation Form about the registration of a criminal case against him - petitioner is only praying for an opportunity to present his case before the Competent Authority requiring the respondents to examine his case in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 2016 (7) TMI 1575 - SUPREME COURT . HELD THAT - In the case of Avtar Singh, the Apex Court has considered the question of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding a criminal case in the verification form and clarified the legal position. The petitioner herein was involved in a case registered on 10.03.206 under Sections 323/341/325/447/34 IPC at PS Khoh, which was compounded with the permission of the Court and he was acquitted on 31.03.2006. On his failure to mention about his involvement in Police Case No.119/2006, the petitioner's services have been terminated for suppression of the fact of his involvement in a criminal case. As per the record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1988 and on the date of registration of FIR i.e. on 10.03.2006, he was 18 years and two months old and the matter has been amicably settled soon thereafter, resulting in his acquittal on 31.03.2006. A photocopy of the certified copy of the order passed in FIR No.119/2006 is on record, which discloses that the FIR, which was registered on 10.03.2006, was in respect of a quarrel within the family and the matter was compromised soon thereafter. The offence was permitted to be compounded by the learned ACJM, Deeg on 31.03.2006 resulting into acquittal of the accused persons including the petitioner herein. The matter remanded back to the Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQrs, ChPT Campus, Chennai to reexamine the issue in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Suppression of facts in the Attestation Form.
3. Application of Supreme Court guidelines in Avtar Singh's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The respondents questioned the maintainability of the petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan, and the termination order was passed by authorities based in Tamil Nadu. However, the court rejected this submission, citing that the headquarters of CISF is located in Delhi. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abrar Ali vs. CISF & Ors.', which confirmed that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction as per Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court cited the decision in 'Charanjit Singh Aulakh vs. Director General, CISF Headquarter', reiterating its jurisdiction due to the location of CISF headquarters within its territory.

2. Suppression of Facts in the Attestation Form:
The petitioner was terminated from service for not disclosing his involvement in a criminal case in the Attestation Form. The case was registered on 10.03.2006 under Sections 323/341/325/447/34 IPC and was compounded, resulting in his acquittal on 31.03.2006. The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the case at the time of filling the form and did not intentionally suppress the information. The court noted that the petitioner was 18 years and two months old at the time of the incident, which was a family quarrel and was amicably settled soon after. Despite this, the appointing authority found his explanation unsatisfactory and terminated his services citing suppression of factual information.

3. Application of Supreme Court Guidelines in Avtar Singh's Case:
The petitioner requested that his case be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines in 'Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.', which address the issue of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding criminal cases in verification forms. The Supreme Court's guidelines emphasize that:
- Information provided must be true and not suppressed.
- Employers should consider special circumstances and relevant government orders/rules.
- In trivial cases, suppression may be condoned.
- For non-trivial convictions, services may be terminated.
- Acquittals on technical grounds should be scrutinized.
- Truthful declarations allow employers to consider antecedents.
- Deliberate suppression, especially with multiple cases, can lead to termination.
- Unknown pending cases may still impact employment decisions.
- Confirmed employees require a departmental inquiry before termination for suppression.
- Only specific required information must be disclosed.
- Knowledge of facts must be attributable to the individual.

The court set aside the impugned orders dated 11.10.2014 and 02.01.2015, remanding the matter to the Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQrs, Chennai, for reexamination in light of the Avtar Singh guidelines. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation within three weeks, explaining how his case fits within these guidelines and why his termination was unjustified. The Inspector General was instructed to dispose of the representation within three months. The court clarified that the petitioner could challenge any adverse order as per law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to make a representation for reconsideration of his case under the Supreme Court's guidelines. The court maintained no order as to costs and provided the petitioner with the opportunity to challenge any future adverse decisions.