JUDGMENT
Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Surya Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Singh, Additional Standing counsel for Central Reserve Police Force.
2. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable (GD), in Central Reserve Police force (CRPF)on 1.4.2003. The verification roll in paragraph 12(a) required the petitioner to inform the respondent authorities, as to whether he has ever been arrested, prosecuted or kept under detention etc. Para 12(a) and (b) of the Verification Roll is quoted as below:
“(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/ disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination, selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority/Institution.
(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is ‘yes’, then give details of prosecution. Detention fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form.
The petitioner replied in negative.
3. In the verification report received from the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide his letter dated 30.7.2003, it was reported that a criminal case No. 298 of 1998 under Sections 323, 325, 506, I.P.C. was pending against the petitioner the case was finalized on 25.8.2003 after petitioner’s enlistment in CRPF and that he was acquitted. A show cause notice was issued was issued to the petitioner as to why his services may not be terminated for suppression of fact in the Verification Roll. After considering his reply he was issued one months notice of termination under Rule 5(1) of Central Government Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The order was served upon the petitioner on 11.5.2004 through the Principal RTC-2 CRPF Chennai and his services were terminated on 10.5.2004. The appeal preferred to the IGP Central Sector CRPF, Lucknow was rejected on 19.8.2004. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside both the orders and for his reinstatement.
4. Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned senior counsel, submits that the petitioner was hardly 15 years old when he was involved in a scuffle in the family where he was accused of assaulting his own uncle, on a dispute relating to domestic animals. It was a minor matter. The petitioner did not intend to give false information. It was a bonafide act to secure employment. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste and is rustic villager. He had in the fear not to loose employment, replied to para 12(a) and (b) in the negative. The criminal case was not serious in nature and that his uncle, in his statement before the Court stated that he did not recognize as to who had given him the lathi blow. The criminal case has since resulted into acquittal. Sri Madhyan submits that in such case the petitioner deserves a benefit of doubt, and in any case he should not be penalized for a bonafide act on his part. He has relied upon the judgment in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, North Eastern Railway, 1997(2) UPLBEC 1201 Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr. (1999) 2 SCC 247 and Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2000) 1 ESC 688
5. Sri Ashok Singh, Additional Standing Standing Counsel, on the other hand, states that the nature of allegations, offence and the acquittal is not relevant. The petitioner attempted to gain entry into the disciplined force by making a false statement. The verification hasrelevance to the character and antecedents of the person seeking recruitment in the disciplined force, and that it is immaterial if the petitioner was subsequently acquitted or discharged from the offence. What is relevant is the conduct and character of the candidate. He has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Shushil Kumar, 1997 SCC (L&S) 492; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, JT 2003 (2) Sc 256; Sanjay Kumar Bajpai v. Union of India 1997(1) SLR 803; the Division Bench Judgements in Special Appeal No. 1075 of 2002 dated 1.10.2002, Special Appeal No. 1121 of 2002 between Rajesh Yadav v. Union of India decided on 11.10.2002; Krishna Chandra Chauarasia v. Union of India, 2004(2) ESC (Alld), 1022 and Nagendra Kumar v. Union of India (writ petition No. 24341 of 2001 decided on 12.8.202) .In Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (supra), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Bajpai v. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court clarified the principle of law with regard to purpose and object for filling up the Verification Roll. It was held that the object of requiring information and the certification of the candidates is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. Where a candidate suppresses material information, he cannot claim a right to continue in service.
6. The petitioner’s services have been terminated under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, by giving him one moths notice. The order is innocuous and does not cast any stigma upon the petitioner to secure any other employment. The object of the order is not to punish the petitioner. The requirement to filling and make declarations in columns 12(a) and (b) of the Verification Roll is for the purposes of verification of character and antecedents of the recruits on the date of recruitment. Any false statement made by the recruit has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent in reference to his continuance in service.
7. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not involved in any serious case and that he was acquitted after enrolment. The object, of the verification is not to see whether the petitioner was actually involved in an offence, or that the Court has convicted him. The issue related to the character of the persons seeking entry into the disciplined force. The petitioner was on bail in the criminal case. It is hard to believe that a person on ball, will forgot even if the offence occurred five years ago that he is involved in a criminal case. The judgment in Qamrul (sic) (supra) and Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another, 1999(2) SCC 247 were dealing with their own specific facts which have been distinguished by the Supreme Court in Kendrya Vidyalay Sangthan (supra). In Harendra v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 2420 of 2005) decided on 1.2.2005, para 11 of the Verification Roll required the petitioner to give answer in positive of negative as to whether he was ever convicted in any criminal case by any court, and if the answer is ‘yes’ to give the details of punishment awarded to him. The petitioner in that case had left the column blank and instead he filed an affidavit, which was not required and was explained by him to have submitted on an instruction of a lawyer. The facts of the present case are distinguishable.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.