LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BIPAD BHANJAN GAYEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 99 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. BIPAD BHANJAN GAYEN (Civil Appeal No.3470 Of 2008) MAY 9, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Service Law: A B Termination - For withholding information in attestation form - Selection as constable pending verification - Candi- C date required to disclose in verification if he had been involved in criminal case - Candidate still under probation - Non-dis- closure of criminal cases pending against him - Termination when found that he w~s involved in criminal cases - Correct- ness of - Held: He was rightly terminated as he withheld rel- D evant information - In such situation, question of any stigma or reading of principles of natural justice would not arise - Mere fact that he was discharged in the criminal case would not ab- solve him from his liability to have filled in attestation form correctly- Railways Protection Force Rules, 1987 - r.67.· E The respondent was selected for training as a Con- stable in the Railway Protection Force on 20th October 1993 and pending verification in terms of his declaration as to whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case, he was sent for training. The declaration aforesaid F was verified by the District Magistrate, when it was re- vealed that he had been involved in an offence punish- able under s.376 IPC and that another case under s.417 IPC apparently on complaint, was pending in Court. On receiving this information, an order dated 10th July 1995 G was passed terminating his services on account of his involvement in police case and suppression of this fac- tual information in the attestation form. Consequent to the aforesaid order, the services of respondent were ter- 99 H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. A minated by a formal order dated 15th July 1995. Subse- quent to the aforesaid orders, the respondont was dis- charged in the FIR. The orders dated 10th July 1995 and 15th July 1995 were challenged before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ pe.,tition and quashed the B impugned orders on the ground that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the re- spondent had not been given any opportunity of being heard before the orders had been made and as the or- ders were stigmatic and penal in nature they could not 0 have been made without proper enquiry etc. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court upheld the findings of The Single judge. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 0 HELD: 1. Rule 57 of the Railways Protection Force Rules, 1987 provides for a probation period of 2 years from the date of appointment subject to extension. Rule 67 provides that a direct recruit selected for appointment as an enrolled member of the Force is liable to be discharged at any stage if the Chief Security Officer, for reasons to be E recorded in writing, deems it fit to do so in the interest of the Force till such time as the recruit is not formally ap- pointed to the Force. A reading of these two rules would reveal that till a recruit is formally enrolled to the Force his appointment is extremely tenuous. It is the admitted F case that the respondent was still under probation at the time his services had been terminated. It is also apparent from the record that the respondent had been given ap- pointment on probation subject to verification of the facts given in the attestation form. Therefore, if an enquiry re- G vealed that the facts given were wrong, the appellant was at liberty to dispense with the services of the respondent as the question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not arise. What has led to the termina- tion of service of the respondent is not his involvement in H the two cases which were then pending, and in which he • UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. 101 ~ BIPAD BHANJAN GAYEN had been discharged subsequently, but the fact that he A had withheld relevant information while filling in the at- testation form. An employment as a Police Officer pre-sup- poses a higher level of integrity and as such a person is expected to uphold the law, and on the contrary, such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. B [Para 5] [104-A-G] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 - relied on. R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police & Ors. c (2008) 1 sec 660 - distinguished. A.P Public Service Commission v.Koneti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.