Disciplinary Proceedings Conducted Fairly: SC Upholds Termination Of CRPF Constable’s Services Allegedly Concealing Information Of Criminal Cases Against Him
|The Supreme Court upheld the termination of services of the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) Constable who was accused of concealing information regarding some criminal cases pending against him.
The Court was deciding an appeal preferred by the Director General, CRPF against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which it upheld the order of the Single Judge, setting aside the order of termination of services of the Constable by the Disciplinary Authority duly upheld by the Appellate Authority.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, “In our opinion, the appellants have exercised their discretion as employers in a reasonable manner. On receiving a complaint against the respondent, not only was a show cause notice issued to him, all the relevant information was also furnished. On receiving his categorical denial in reply, the appellants proceeded with disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The said proceedings were conducted in a fair manner and taken to their logical conclusion. Only thereafter did the Disciplinary Authority pass an order terminating the services of the respondent which order was upheld by the Appellant Authority, for just and valid reasons.”
The Bench added that it cannot be urged that the decision of the appellants to terminate the services of the Constable was unjustified, tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness or too harsh.
Advocate Nidhi Gupta appeared for the appellants while AOR Brijesh Kumar Gupta appeared for the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent was appointed on the post of a Constable (GD) in the CRPF and inducted in Group Centre, CRPF, Lucknow. On completion of his basic training, he reported to 149 Battalion and at the time of his recruitment, he submitted his character certificate and antecedent certificate issued by the District Magistrate. As a part of completion of requisite formalities related to recruitment, Group Centre directed all employees including the respondent to fill up the Verification Roll as per which if it was found during the service period that the employee had given incorrect details or concealed any correct information, his services could be terminated. Column 12 of the Verification Roll specifically directed the employees to state in clear terms whether he had ever been arrested or prosecuted or whether any case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling up the form. A warning was also issued regarding the same.
The respondent filled up the Verification Roll and gave a reply in the negative in response to all the questions posed in Column 12 of the form. Subsequently, a letter was received in the office of Commandant stating that the respondent had concealed information regarding some cases registered against him based on an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 332, 427, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Based on this, reverification process took place and the District Magistrate confirmed that a criminal case was registered against the respondent and the matter was pending before the Court. An inquiry was initiated against him and then his services were terminated. The High Court’s Single Judge set aside the order of termination of services by the Disciplinary Authority duly upheld by the Appellate Authority. The Division Bench upheld the same and being aggrieved, the appellants were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “In the case at hand, the learned Single Judge has erred in accepting the submission made on behalf of the respondent that it was only after the appellants passed the order dated 24th June, 2014 removing him from service that he had inquired about the criminal case pending against him and later on, the respondent was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 459/2011. As noted above, the said observations run contrary to the record itself that clearly reveals that the respondent was well-aware of the fact that a criminal case had been registered against him, he was taken into judicial custody and had subsequently applied for bail along with other co-accused in the said case which was granted by the trial Court on 04th October, 2011. All the aforesaid events had occurred well before 30th November, 2011, the date on which the respondent had filled up the Verification Roll.”
The Court further noted that the respondent had complete knowledge of the registration of the FIR and pendency of the criminal cases and despite that, he had wilfully withheld material information from the appellants while filling up the Verification Roll. It said that he had misconducted himself when the appellants issued him a show-cause notice calling upon him to explain his position and falsely denied the allegations levelled against him in his reply to the notice to show cause that ultimately led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
“Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the firm view that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have interfered in the orders dated 24th June, 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating the service of the respondent, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23rd September, 2014. The Appellate Court fell into the same error when it observed that it was incumbent for the appellants to have proven the fact that pendency of the criminal case was within the knowledge of the respondent and the said information had been deliberately withheld by him. The records speak to the contrary and make short shrift of such a plea taken by the respondent. The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh and the ensuing criminal cases”, it also said.
The Court concluded that the respondent failed to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody and on moving an application, was released on bail by the Trial Court along with other co-accused.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
Cause Title- Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 550)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Nidhi Gupta, Nachiketa Joshi, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates Akshya Nair, Nidhi Khanna, and Priyanka Das.
Respondent: AOR Brijesh Kumar Gupta and Advocate Sandeep Garg.