0

Delhi High Court Analyzes the Suppression of Information in CISF Enlistment.

Blog ,

Case Title: SHRI NOMIL RANA versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 7385/2018

Dated on: February 29, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

Facts:

The petitioner, Shri Nomil Rana, was enrolled in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable. However, he was terminated from service due to alleged suppression of information regarding a pending criminal case against him in his Attestation Form. The petitioner contends that the criminal matter was compromised and quashed by the High Court of Allahabad before he joined the CISF, and that he did not fill out the Attestation Form himself. He argues that he would have disclosed the information if asked, despite the case being settled.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether Shri Nomil Rana suppressed material information regarding pending criminal cases against him at the time of filling his Attestation Form.
  2. Whether the termination of Shri Nomil Rana from CISF justified under the circumstances.
  3. Whether the petitioner exhausted all available departmental remedies before approaching the court.

Legal Provisions:

Section 24 of the RTI Act:  Exempts security and intelligence agencies from RTI provisions.

Section 323 IPC:  Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 504 IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant contends that he was enrolled in CISF in 2014 and subsequently terminated in 2016 due to alleged suppression of information about pending criminal cases against him. However, he argues that the criminal case in question was compromised and ultimately quashed by the HC of Allahabad before his enlistment in CISF. Therefore, he asserts that there was no deliberate concealment on his part. Furthermore, the appellant argues that the Attestation Form was filled out by someone else and he merely signed it. He contends that had he been asked about the pending case, he would have disclosed it, indicating that there was no intent to suppress information. Additionally, he relies on a SC’s judgment to support his contention.

 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent argued that Shri Nomil Rana was terminated from CISF due to the suppression of material information in his Attestation Form. Specifically, they contended that Rana failed to disclose two pending criminal cases against him when filling out the form. Despite one of the cases being quashed before his enlistment, the respondent asserted that Rana still had an obligation to disclose it at the time of filling the form. Moreover, the respondent highlighted that during the process of character and antecedents’ verification after Rana’s appointment, it was revealed that a criminal case was registered against him. Subsequently, the Standing Screening Committee (SSC) found Rana unfit for government service, leading to his termination following due process. Furthermore, the respondent emphasized that Rana’s attempts to challenge his termination, including filing a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad and subsequent representations, were unsuccessful. They argued that Rana failed to exhaust all available departmental remedies before approaching the court directly.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In its analysis and judgment, the court likely scrutinized the contents of the Attestation Form and considered whether Shri Nomil Rana deliberately concealed information about the pending criminal cases against him. It would have assessed the timing of the compromise or quashing of the criminal case in relation to Rana’s enlistment in CISF to determine if he was obligated to disclose it. Furthermore, the court have evaluated whether Rana had exhausted all available departmental remedies before approaching the court, as this could impact the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. After considering all the evidence and legal arguments, the court have rendered its judgment. If the court found that Rana indeed suppressed material information and failed to exhaust departmental remedies, it might have upheld the termination from CISF. Conversely, the court determined that Rana’s actions were inadvertent or that he had exhausted all remedies, it have ruled in his favor, potentially ordering his reinstatement or other appropriate relief.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

0

Suppression of facts about pendency of Criminal Case by a person in a CISF with high standards of integrity has a bearing on his Suitability: Delhi High Court

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case title: Shri Nomil Rana Vs The Union of India and Ors.

Case no.: W.P. (C) 7385/2018

Decision on: February 29th, 2024

Quoram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Facts of the case

The issue in the case pertains to the termination of the service of the petitioner by the respondent Force on account of suppression of facts by the former.

Shri Nomil Rana, the Petitioner, who was enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), joined the Respondents Force (Senior Commandant, CISF) as a Constable after completion of his training. Subsequently, by an impugned order, he was terminated from the services of the respondents due to the suppression of a fact related to a Criminal and Atrocities Case. The representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order was rejected by the respondents. Further, a plea was filed before the Delhi High Court to set-aside the impugned termination order and thereby, directs the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, in the interest of justice.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

The Counsel submitted that the Criminal matter against the petitioner which was not disclosed in the Attestation Form was compromised between the parties before he joined the service. Moreover, the Allahabad High Court quashing the entire proceedings granted a stay in the Criminal Case stating that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the same. Further, he submitted that the Attestation Form, in which the material information related to pending Criminal Case is alleged to have been suppressed by the petitioner, was filled up by some other person and not the petitioner.

The Counsel contends that if asked, the petitioner would have definitely disclosed the facts to the person about the same and thus, there was no question of concealment of the material information. Therefore, in support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. He further, submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the services without giving any notice or opportunity of being heard which violated the Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the CISF Rules 2001.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

The Counsel submitted that the petitioner was terminated from the services due to the suppression of the material information specifically in Column 12 of the Attestation Form, wherein, the petitioner was asked to disclose any pending cases against him, for which he answered in negative. He submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the said petition as the Criminal Case though quashed, was pending against him at the time of filling the said form and contended that as such he had suppressed the material information by ignoring the warning.

The Counsel submitted that the suppression of material facts in a disciplined force which seeks to maintain high standards of integrity cannot be acceptable. He also relied on the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav and Satish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India to highlight the importance of furnishing the employee’s information on prosecution or conviction and the repercussions of suppressing the material details essential for their appointment.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The court observed that the Criminal Case against the petitioner was initiated in the year 2013 and quashed in October 2014, which was much later to the filling of the Attestation Form by the petitioner and as such it noted that there was no reason as to why the petitioner could not have revealed the details during his appointment. Hence, there was a clear case of concealment of material information made out against the petitioner, which led to the termination of his services by the respondents.

The bench asserted that the argument that petitioner did not fill the said form cannot be accepted as he had put his signature in conformity with the all the essential information given in the Form. The Court considering the plea for violation of principles of Natural Justice noted that every appointment is subject to character and antecedent verification of an employee. Hence, it observed that since in the present case the employee ignored the warning given in the said form and suppressed the factual information vital for his appointment he would be liable to be terminated from the services.

The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court case in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwariya case, wherein it was held that in a situation where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement or not disclosed the material facts or suppressed the material fact, therefore cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in the future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee.

The Delhi High Court disposing the petition held that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of termination on the ground of suppression of material information by the petitioner in the Attestation Form. It ruled that the suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by the petitioner, who is seeking appointment to a police post, has a bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement