Merely Because The Petitioner Has Been Acquitted Later On Does Not Dilute The Allegation Of Suppression Of A Pending Criminal Case: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the suppression of a pending criminal case is all the more serious, and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted later on does not dilute the allegation of suppression. In hearing an appeal against termination for suppression of material facts, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary noted that compliance with natural justice is not required, particularly when the candidature was subject to verification from the district authorities and the petitioner was still under temporary employment.

The petitioner filed the petition challenging the order of termination and dismissal of appeal by The Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General of Police. The petition sought to set aside the rejection of the appeal. The petitioner's services were terminated on account of impression of facts and furnishing incorrect information about the pendency of a criminal case at the time of appointment. An FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34, and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act was pending against the petitioner. However, later on, he was acquitted of all charges.

The issue before the Court was whether Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, particularly Rule 5, applies to the petitioner. The Court, on this point, decided against the petitioner. On verifying the appointment letter, the Court noted that the position was purely temporary, and the candidate was to be governed by CRPF Act, 1949 and the CRPF Rules, 1955. The pre-verification form enclosed stipulated that services could be terminated at any time within two years.

It perused Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which provides that all force members shall be enrolled for three years, and they shall be liable to be discharged at any time on one month's notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period, those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi permanency under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Those not declared quasi-permanent shall be continued as temporary government employees. It also provides that those who are temporary shall be liable to be discharged on one month's notice, and those quasi-permanent shall be liable to discharge on three months' notice under the said rules [i.e., Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965], as amended from time to time.

The present case noted that the petitioner was recruited and sent for training awaiting a verification report. His status as per Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 was a temporary government employee. Further, as per Rule 16 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 itself, the persons like the petitioner under temporary employment are governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that the petitioner is not governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was rejected and devoid of merit.

The Court referred to the case of Rohitash Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors. The Court held that non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and may be grounds for an employer to cancel candidature or terminate services. It also referred to the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others, where it was held that "Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."

Case Title: Purshotam Gope v. The Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order