Punjab and Haryana High Court allows appeal of Union to set aside order to reinstate CRPF constable

The division bench of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal was hearing the appeal (LPA) of Centre against respondent CRPF constable Ajit Singh, who had allegedly concealed information of an FIR registered against him during his verification roll.

The court said, “The Ajit Singh was seeking a job in a disciplined Armed Police Force, thus, he was duty bound to disclose the pendency of the criminal case against him. If Ajit Singh was involved in a serious or a trivial criminal case was irrelevant but it was important that the respondent didn’t disclose pendency of criminal trial against him as well as his arrest.”

Ajit Singh was appointed as a CRPF constable and prior to his appointment, he was required to fill verification roll, which is a statutory in nature and in the said verification roll, there is particular column which requires a candidate to disclose his criminal antecedents. However, Ajit Singh had written that he was never arrested or prosecuted and no case is pending against him in any court of law. But an FIR dated August 14, 2010, was pending against him and he was arrested in the said FIR.

He was then served a termination order under terms of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule 1965, which was followed by a final termination order dated April 10, 2012. The respondent filed an appeal before Appellate Authority that came to be dismissed vide order dated March 16, 2012. However, later during the trial, he was acquitted from the trial court in 2016. Ajit Singh then filed a petition against his termination in the HC, wherein the single bench allowed his plea on September 13, 2019.

The Centre, through counsel Arun Gosain, contended before the division bench that respondent in his verification roll was required to disclose about pendency of FIR and arrest whereas he has concealed the FIR and arrest and as per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent cannot be permitted to continue in service and learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court and ignored the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The court then observed, “The respondent as per rules was required to file a verification roll correctly. The verification roll is in English and in Hindi, thus, nobody can claim lack of knowledge of language. In the present case, the respondent has ticked against Column No.12 in Hindi which indicates that he cannot claim that by mistake or because of ignorance, he has not disclosed the fact of registration of FIR.”

The HC added, “The respondent was under probation and that the Union, in view of the aforestated SC judgment, was not bound to follow the procedure contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondent was, thus, asked to put forth his stand in in one month and was also given the opportunity to file appeal which respondent unsuccessfully availed…The termination orders in question are not stigmatic in nature, thus non compliance of Article 311(2) especially when respondent was under probation…”