AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1850/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-07-2010
STATE OF KERALA Vs. HAMIL RAPHAEL
BY ADV. SMT. P. SANTHAMMA, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.JAIJU BABU
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J.
The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 1850 of 2008. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the appellants directing not to give effect to the advice issued by the PSC to appoint the respondent as Warden in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department and to terminate him from service. By the judgment under appeal, the Writ Petition was allowed and reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits, including seniority, was ordered. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
2.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
By Ext.P1 order dated 16.11.2003, based on the ranking secured by the respondent for the post of L.D. Clerk/Warden, the PSC advised him for appointment to the post of Warden in the Scheduled Tribe Development Department. Accordingly, he was appointed as hostel warden in the PMH (B), Chindakky where he joined duty on 24.11.2003.
At the time of joining duty, in terms of the provisions contained in
Rule 10(b) of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules,
the respondent was called upon to fill up Ext.R1(a) proforma which contained a warning that giving of false information or suppression of real facts will make the candidate liable to be debarred from appointments under the Government or in any establishment to which appointments are made on the advice of the Public Service Commission and he shall also be liable for prosecution. It was also made clear that if it is found at any time during his service that false information had been given in this form or any material fact had been suppressed, it will result in termination of his service, without prejudice to any proceedings pending against him.
3. Insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, all that is needed to be taken note of is clause 15(a).
Clause 15(a) contained a question whether any case is pending in any Criminal Court against the candidate.
Answering this question, the respondent stated 'yes'. Clause 15(b) provided that if 'yes' is the answer to clause 15(a), the details shall be given. In answer to this question, the appellant gave the following answer:
The proforma concludes with a declaration of the candidate that all the facts stated therein are true and complete to the best of the knowledge and information and belief of the declarant and that he is not aware of any circumstances, which will adversely affect the appointment under the Government or to any other post to which appointment is made by selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission.
4. Subsequent to the respondent joining service, the Government got an enquiry into the character and antecedents of the respondent conducted and Ext.R2(b) report dated 11.06.2004 was received from the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvananthapurm Rural. In this report, it was stated that apart from the three criminal cases mentioned in Ext.R2(a), the respondent is an accused in Crime No. 194 of 2003 of the Kadinamkulam Police Station involving offences under Sections 342, 201, 202, 302 and 34 of IPC. This report concluded by stating that the character and antecedents of the candidate is not satisfactory.
5. On 07.05.2007, the appellant issued Ext.P2 memorandum to the respondent stating that on verification of his character and antecedents, it has come to the notice of the Government that he was involved in S.C. No. 390 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Court, Attingal and C.C. Nos. 442 and 562 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Attingal. In this memorandum, the following allegations were levelled against the respondent:
" You have not specifically mentioned the crime number and name of Police Station of the aforementioned criminal cases and have stated the case No. of S.C. No. 390/01 incorrectly in the proforma filled up by you on 24.11.2003, thereby furnished false information, which may render a candidate unfit for employment under the Government. It is also seen that you are an accused (A.2) in crime No. 194/2003 of Kadinamkulam Police Station u/s 342, 201, 202, 302 and 34 IPC. It appears that you have involved in criminal cases of grave nature including murder, outraging the modesty of a woman, inflicting grevious injury etc. and therefore you, seems to be not a law abiding citizen, lacking character and integrity.
AND WHEREAS Government consider that you are not suitable for appointment to public service in view of the above said facts.
THERFORE, you are required to submit your written explanation if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this Memo, as to why you should not be debarred from appointment to pubic service. If your written explanation is not received within the specified time, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be proceeded accordingly. You are also required to stat whether you desire to be heard in person."
6. Ext.P5 is the reply furnished by the respondent. Insofar as the allegations contained in Ext.P2 memorandum are concerned, he has stated thus:
"Three crimes are noted in the memorandum in which I am arrayed as an accused. It is submitted that in all the three cases mentioned in the memorandum I have been acquitted. It is submitted that in C.C.No. 442/2002, CC 562/02 and CC 553/02 I was acquitted of offences alleged against me. Copy of the notice issued by the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court-I Attingal is enclosed herewith. This fact is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the order of the Government directing the Director to reinstate me in service. Regarding Cr. No. 66/97 which was numbered as S.C. No. 390/01 also, I was acquitted. It is stated in the memorandum that I did not specifically mention the crime and name of Police Station of the criminal cases and that I have stated the case No. of SC 390/01 incorrectly in the proforma filled up by me on 24.11.2003 and thereby furnished false information. It is submitted that I have not suppressed any facts from the Government or any authority. I furnished the available information with regard to the criminal case to the best of my knowledge. Regarding the statement that I have not specifically mentioned the crime number and name of Police Station of the Criminal Cases mentioned in the memorandum, it is submitted that I have given the number of the case pending before the Court. It is submitted that as on today I have not been convicted in any criminal case. In all the cases mentioned in the memorandum I have been acquitted honorably except Crime No. 194/03 which is pending trial."
A reading of Ext.P5 shows that in addition to the cases that are declared in Ext.R1(a), C.C. No. 553 of 2002 was also pending against him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Attingal and that in that case also, he was acquitted
7. After Ext.P5 reply was received, the Government issued Ext.P6 dated 14.12.2007, ordering that the advice of the Public Service Commission for appointment of the respondent as Warden shall not be given effect to for the reason that the candidate had suppressed the fact of his involvement in Crime No. 99 of 2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, which was chargesheeted as C.C. No. 553 of 2002 and has partially suppressed the facts regarding the other cases registered against him and mentioned in the verification roll. The second reason stated is that his general character and antecedents are not satisfactory.
8. Finally, the 2nd appellant issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.12.2007 stating thus:
[Omitted]
9. It was in these circumstances, the respondent filed the writ petition. In the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge has found that the respondent could not have been blamed for not disclosing Crime No. 194 of 2003 (S.C No. 1107 of 2006) in the verification roll, for the reason that the said crime was registered against him only on 30.12.2003 and therefore, the details of the said crime could not have been declared in the verification roll submitted by him on 24.11.2003. As regards the non disclosure of Crime No. 99 of 2001 of Kadinamkulam Police Station (C.C. No. 553 of 2002), the learned single Judge held that since the details of this case was disclosed by none other than the respondent himself in Ext.P5 reply submitted by him, it cannot be assumed that there was any wilful suppression of facts. The learned single Judge has also taken note of the fact that by the time the proceedings were initiated against the respondent, all the criminal cases except S.C. No. 1107 of 2006 had ended in acquittal. The learned single Judge has also found fault with the appellants for taking action against the respondent belatedly. Further, the learned single Judge found that the conclusion in Ext.R2(b) that the character and antecedents are unsatisfactory is untenable because the same was based on the involvement of the respondent in the aforesaid criminal cases which all ended in his acquittal. On this basis, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and ordered that the respondent be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. It is this judgment that is challenged in this appeal.
10. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
11. The learned Government Pleader attacked the aforesaid findings of the learned single Judge. She contended that admittedly there was suppression of material facts in Ext.R2(a) verification roll and according to the learned Government Pleader that itself invited action for termination of service. She also justified the conclusion in Ext.R2(a) report that the character and antecedents of the respondent are unsatisfactory for public employment, particularly as Warden of a tribal hostel which accommodated youngsters. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was no wilful suppression of facts and according to him, he having been acquitted in all the cases, the facts stated in Ext.R2(b) cannot now be relied on.
12. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. The first point to be clarified is regarding the suppression in the verification roll that was obtained from the respondent. The object and purpose of obtaining such a declaration has been explained by the Apex Court at least in two judgments. The first one is Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] where the Supreme Court held that the requirement of filling the relevant column of the attestation form is for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the candidate and that the suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents in relation to his continuance in service. It was also held that the information obtained is necessary to judge the suitability of the employee to continue in service and that a candidate having suppressed information, cannot claim the right to continue in service. It is also clarified that the nature of the offence or the coutcome of the case are not material. These principles have been laid down in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, the relevant portion of which is extracted below for ready reference:
'Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were not material. The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification and character and the antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service.
12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the assertion form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not."
13. The very same issue was again considered by the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others (AIR 2013 SC 3325) where after surveying all the relevant precedents, the Apex Court held thus:
"In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April, 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amount to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case."
14. It is bearing in mind the above principles laid down by the Apex Court that we have to appreciate
Whether the non disclosure of Crime No. 99 of 2001 (C.C.No. 553 of 2002) in the verification roll is fatal to the respondent or not.
Admittedly, when Ext.R1(a) proforma was submitted by the respondent on 24.11.2003, he was one of the accused in Crime No. 99 of 2001 of the Kadinamkulam Police Station which was also by then chargesheeted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Attingal as C.C. No. 553 of 2002. It is not disputed that in Ext.R1(a) verification roll, the particulars of the said case was not declared by the respondent. This is despite the fact that Ext.R1(a) itself contained a warning that if any information is suppressed or found false, that would result in debarring the candidate from appointment and termination of his service without prejudice to any proceedings pending against him. The respondent had also given a declaration that the declaration made by him was true and complete to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. In our view, irrespective of whether the case has subsequently ended in acquittal or not, the non disclosure of the particulars regarding the Crime No. 99 of 2001 did amount to suppression of material facts entitling the appellants to initiate proceedings against the respondent.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the fact that it was the respondent himself who disclosed the pendency of the above criminal case in Ext.P5 reply, showed that he had no mala fide intention to deliberately suppress information about the case. Though this contention has been accepted by the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the contention or agree with the conclusion in the judgment. In our view, if the respondent was anxious to disclose this information voluntarily, he could have made the declaration at the earliest point of time. Instead, he waited till the receipt of Ext.R2(b) verification report from the police and made the disclosure only in his reply to Ext.P2 memorandum where he was informed of having made the suppression of facts. In other words, these facts show that only on realising that he had no other options left, the respondent disclosed the pendency of Crime No. 553 of 2002. Such a declaration cannot be accepted to be a voluntary one nor can the respondent get himself absolved of the charge that this was a mala fide suppression of a material fact. Facts suppressed had relevance in the assessment of the character and antecedents of the respondent. In terms of the provisions contained in Rule 10(b)(III) of Part II KS & SSR, this entitled the appellants to initiate action for termination of the service of the respondent.
16. Yet another reason relied on by the appellants in Ext.P7 order is that the character and antecedents of the respondent are unsatisfactory. It is true that such a conclusion has been arrived at primarily on account of his involvement in criminal cases. It may be true that criminal cases have ended in acquittal. In fact, C.C. Nos. 442 and 553 of 2002 were compounded and in S.C. No. 390 of 2001 of the Sessions Court, Attingal, the respondent was acquitted mainly for the reason that all the occurrence witnesses had turned hostile. Insofar as C.C. No. 562 of 2002 is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the prosecution had withdrawn the case leading to his acquittal. Though it is true that the respondent was acquitted in these criminal cases, his involvement in various criminal cases show the unsatisfactory nature of his character and antecedents rendering him unfit for public employment. Therefore, the conclusion contained in Ext.P7 regarding character and antecedents also has to be sustained.
17. We, therefore, cannot agree with the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition will stand dismissed.
