9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner by a letter dated 31.07.2023, which is assailed by the petitioner in the present petition. 2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that petitioner's candidature was not revoked on account of criminal proceedings instituted against her, which now stand quashed, but for the reason that she had not disclosed the fact that she was being prosecuted in her application form. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The petitioner completed her five years of Bachelor of Law degree course from National Law University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in June, 2019. The petitioner states that she secured first division in the said course. 4. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate in Delhi on 23.08.2019. She cleared the All India Bar Examination in the year 2021. Thereafter, she participated in various competitive examinations for appointment in government services. She also appeared for the DJS Examination but was unsuccessful in clearing the Preliminary Examinations held prior to 2022. 5. On 23.02.2022, DHC invited online applications from eligible candidates for filling up 123 (one hundred and twenty-three) vacancies in DJS. The DJS Preliminary Examination - 2022 was scheduled to be held on 27.03.2022. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he answer to (a) or (b) is "Yes" full particulars of the case, arrest detention fine conviction, sentence etc. and the nature of the case pending in the court/university educational authority etc. at the time of filling up this form should be given. YES A case bearing criminal complaint no. 14924 of 2018 titled as "DRI vs Amit Goyal & Ors." is pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House New Delhi. However, the said criminal complaint as well as summoning order dated 22.10.2018 has been challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing Crl. MC No.2141 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to stay the proceedings against the criminal complaint No. 14924 of 2018, vide order dated 17.02.2023, modified by order dated 25.05.2023." 10. Thereafter, on 07.06.2023, petitioner was directed by the DHC to provide certified copies of all documents relating to the Criminal Complaint No.14924/2018 as mentioned by her in her attestation form. The same were furnished by the petitioner under cover of a letter dated 01.07.2023. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 11. The factual averments made in regard to the aforesaid criminal proceedings are briefly summarized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Sh. Anil Kumar Langan under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on various dates. They also recorded the petitioner's statement on 20.06.2017. She claims that she denied having purchased any arms and ammunition and informed the concerned officials that her father dealt with the purchase, sale and import of arms and ammunition. 11.5 The Principal Additional Director General of the DRI issued an order dated 03.08.2018, sanctioning prosecution of the accused persons including the petitioner, Sh. Anil Langan and Sh. Dwij Langan. 11.6 Subsequently, a Criminal Complaint bearing No. 14924/2018 dated 26.09.2018 was filed by the DRI against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter the 'Customs Act'). The complaint also noted the role of the petitioner and observed that she was liable for penal action under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 11.7 The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 22.10.2018 took cognizance of the complaint, and issued summons to the petitioner as well as other accused. 11.8 In the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order dated 28.06.2019 holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had made a full disclosure of the criminal complaint pending against her as well as further proceedings in that regard. 13. She contended that no allegation of suppression of information could be levelled against the petitioner as the verification form was not clear as to the disclosure required. She submitted that a reading of the application form indicated that the petitioner was required to disclose information regarding whether she had been arrested, kept under detention or convicted by a court of law. The inclusion of the word 'prosecution' in the context was vague. She submitted that petitioner may have misunderstood the specific nature of the query but there was no intention to suppress any fact. She contended that this was also clear from the disclosure made by her in her attestation form. 14. According to Ms. Manish, the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 299 and Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 103. She also referred to the decisions in& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inated." 18. In view of the above, Ms. Manish, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, readily conceded that if the statement made in the application form is found to be false or incorrect, the petitioner's candidature for appointment would stand cancelled. However, according to her, the petitioner's response to the query in the application form was apposite. She contended that the petitioner had not made any false statement or attempted to conceal any information. 19. It is settled law that suppression of material information or making a false statement particularly in respect of queries relating to prosecution and conviction would have a material bearing on the suitability of a candidate. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437, the Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear that neither the gravity of the offence nor the fact that the criminal proceedings had ultimately culminated in acquittal of the candidate, would be relevant in considering whether a candidate who has suppressed information while applying for the post was suitable for continuing as a probationer. In the said case, the candidate had applied for the post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service." [Emphasis Added] 21. In Yogeeta Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. SLP (Civil) Nos. 4860-4861/2019, the candidate had applied for the post of a Judicial Officer and was required to respond to the following query: "Did you ever figure as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with result." 22. The candidate replied in the negative. At the material time, the candidate was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case under Sections 323,524,506,542 and 427 of the IPC. The closure report in the said case was subsequently filed. In the aforesaid context, the Court observed as under: "6. In the application form, the applicant, who, as such, applied for the post of a judicial officer was required to disclose certain facts, more particularly, the facts stated in Clause 18 of the Application Form and non-disclosure of true facts and not only that but saying "No" can certainly be said to be suppres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted in the criminal case and therefore, should not have been denied the appointment to the post of Fireman. However, the Madras High Court set aside the said order in the writ petition filed by the respondent authorities principally on the ground that there was no dispute that the appellant had suppressed the fact regarding his involvement in a criminal case. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal against the said decision of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court also observed "the appellant had intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services." The Supreme Court held that the appellant had suppressed the material fact and therefore the question of exercising equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise. 25. The decision in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Northern Railway & Ors. (supra) is of little assistance to the petitioner. In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that the appellant was a juvenile when the criminal case was registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to respond to the following query: "Have you been arrested, detained or convicted by a court of any offence if the answer is 'yes' the full particulars of the Arrest or detention or conviction and the sentence should be given." 30. The applicant was arraigned as an accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 147/149/447/323/506 of the IPC but he had not been convicted. The Courts held that the query raised did not require the candidates to disclose their involvement in the case. 31. In Chinnam Naidu's case, the candidate was merely required to disclose whether he was detained under a State/Central preventive detention laws or had been convicted. In Mithul Kumar Jana's case, the candidate was required to disclose whether he was arrested, detained or convicted and not whether he was involved in a criminal case. 32. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Supreme Court had examined the earlier decisions and summarized the conclusion as under: "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. Informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y asked for. 37. The key question to be addressed is whether there is any ambiguity in the information as sought at serial no. 6 of the application form. 38. The case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) squarely covers the controversy in the present petition. In that case, the applicant had responded in the negative to the queries, which are undoubtedly similar to the disclosure required in the attestation form (not the application). The Supreme Court had accepted the contention that the queries under query 12(a) and 12(b) in English version - which are similar to the queries in this case - were confusing. The Supreme Court also highlighted that the object of a query is to ascertain the antecedents and the character of the candidate to consider his fitness and suitability for employment. 39. It is relevant to reproduce the query referred to as query 12(a) in English version, which was the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadav's case. The said query reads as under: "12 (a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swers Query 12(a) by the word "yes" it would really mean that he has been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention and bound down/fined/and convicted by a court of law even if he has not been subjected to all those processes. (v) The first part of Query 12(a) is capable of being interpreted in two ways. One way of reading it is: "whether the declarant had ever been arrested, or prosecuted, or kept under detention, or bound down/fined, or convicted by a court of law for any offence", thereby requiring the declarant to state whether he was subjected to any one of those events/processes. Another way of reading it is: "whether the declarant has been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, bound down/fined, and convicted by any court of law for any offence" thereby requiring the declarant to state whether he had undergone all those events/processes with reference to a criminal offence. The above questions can confuse not only a person with basic education, but may even confuse a person legally trained to assume that he has to answer "yes" only if he had been convicted and not otherwise. 20. We agree that the English version of the questions were involved and confusing. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner had responded in the negative to the query raised in the application form on account of misunderstanding the same to mean, whether, she had been arrested and prosecuted and kept under detention by a court of law for any offence. This is because in the attestation form filled by the petitioner, she clearly disclosed the criminal case pending against her as well as the petition preferred by her for quashing the said case. 44. It is also relevant to note that after the order in the present petition was reserved, the petitioner had filed an application for placing additional documents/facts. The petitioner had submitted that another candidate (hereafter referred to as 'ME') had a criminal case pending against him but had responded in the negative to the query in the application form and had been selected for appointment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service pursuant to Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022. She submitted that the petitioner was similarly placed as ME. Whilst, no action was taken by the DHC against ME, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled. She contended that the decision to take steps against the petitioner was, thus arbitrary, and was liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
