Deepak Kumar v. Punjab National Bank and Ors

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)

1.    The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution  of  India  is  seeking  setting  aside  of  communication  dated

13.07.2016 (Annexure P-14) whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Peon has been cancelled.

2.    The petitioner in November' 2014 applied for the post of Peon with respondent-bank.  The  petitioner  at  initial  stage  filed  application  form  and thereafter  at  the  time  of  interview  submitted  attestation  form. The  petitioner appeared for the interview conducted by the respondent-Bank and stated that no criminal case is pending against him whereas FIR No. 121 dated 30.12.2011 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC  was already pending against him and he was facing trial in the said FIR. The petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 15.07.2015 passed by JMIC, Kapurthala in the said FIR. The respondents vide impugned communication dated 13.07.2016 has cancelled candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of criminal antecedents.

3.    Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate submits that due to inadvertence the petitioner  did  not  disclose  pendency  of  criminal  trial  against  him.  He  was ultimately acquitted, thus, respondents were supposed to take lenient view.

4.     Per contra, Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate submits that petitioner was duty bound to disclose his antecedents and it is settled proposition of law that in case of non-disclosure of criminal case, the employer at any stage may terminate an employee from service.

5.    I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.    The  conceded  position  emerging  from  the  record  is  that  the petitioner was involved in FIR No. 121 dated 30.12.2011. The petitioner came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 15.07.2015 of JMIC, Kapurthala after filing of application and interview. The petitioner, as per attestation form, was supposed to disclose his antecedents. The petitioner did not disclose his antecedents in the attestation form. In the attestation form dated 20.11.2014, there was a specific column enjoining the candidates to disclose factum of arrest or detention or conviction  by  Court  of  law  for  any  offence.  The  said  para  with  reply  of petitioner is reproduced as below:- "12.  Have  you  ever  been  arrested  or  kept  under  detention  or bound down/fined/convicted by a Court of law for any offence, or debarred/disqualified  by  the  Public  Service  Commission  from appearing at its examination selections or debarred from taking any examination or restricted by authority/institution?" -NO- ).     A three 9ud e Bench of Supre&e $ourt in Avtar Singh v. Union of India,  (2016)  8  SCC,  471  has  adverted  /ith  6uestion  of  appoint&ent  of  a candidate  /ho  /as;is  invo!ved  in  a  cri&ina!  case.  The  $ourt  after  noticin p!ethora of 7ud &ents has cu!!ed out !e a! position as 0e!o/:

"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 a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical MANOJ KUMAR ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false 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 fact which was

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

[Emphasis Supplied]

8.     A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and others., 2023 (7) SCC 536 has adverted with the question of appointment  of  a  candidate  against  whom  criminal  case  is  pending/or  was instituted. The Court has laid down guidelines as below: "93. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:

93.1.  Each  case  should  be  scrutinised  thoroughly  by  the  public employer concerned, through its designated officials — more so, in the case of recruitment for the Police Force, who are under a duty to  maintain  order,  and  tackle  lawlessness,  since  their  ability  to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. (See Raj Kumar [State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 745])

93.2.  Even  in  a  case  where  the  employee  has  made  declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still  has  the  right  to  consider  the  antecedents,  and  cannot  be compelled  to  appoint  the  candidate.  The  acquittal  in  a  criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post.  It  would  be  still  open  to  the  employer  to  consider  the antecedents  and  examine  whether  the  candidate  concerned  is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

93.3. The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed  or  given  false  information  in  regard  to  the  matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.

93.4. The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

93.5.  The  Court should inquire  whether the  authority  concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.

93.6. Is there any element of bias in the decision of the authority?

93.7. Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable?" [Emphasis Supplied]

9.     In the case in hand, the petitioner concededly, did not disclose his criminal antecedents in the attestation form. The claim of the petitioner is that he had already been acquitted in aforesaid FIR, thus, non-declaration of antecedents can be condoned. It is not case of the petitioner that he was unaware of his antecedents. He was very much aware of the case already pending against him. The petitioner as per his wisdom decided to conceal the case pending against him.

10.     The Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) in Paragraph No.38.5 has held that where an employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. In Paragraph No.38.7, it has been held that in case of deliberate suppression of fact, an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services. The similar observation has been made by Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). Case of the petitioner  is  squarely  covered  by  aforesaid  judgments.  Had  the  petitioner disclosed his antecedents, this Court could consider nature of criminal case or its status, however, the petitioner as per his wisdom had decided not to disclose his antecedents. The act of the petitioner comes in the teeth of afore-cited judgments of the Apex Court.

11.     In  the  wake  of  above  discussion  &  findings  and  following  the judgments of Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

07.02.2024              [JAGMOHAN BANSAL] manoj                JUDGE

220 2024:PHHC:017095 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.02.2024 DEEPAK KUMAR ….PETITIONER Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. ****