Calcutta High Court Upholds Termination Of Probationary CISF Constable For Suppressing Criminal Cases In Attestation Form

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for suppressing his involvement in pending criminal cases while filling up his attestation form, holding that the concealment of criminal antecedents justified termination under the CISF Rules without holding a departmental enquiry.A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas allowed an intra-court appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside a Single Judge's order which had quashed the constable's termination and reinstated him in service.The respondent had participated in a recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in 2012-13 and was appointed as a CISF Constable on probation on September 15, 2014. During verification of his attestation form, the authorities found that although he had answered "No" to the question asking whether any criminal case was pending against him, he had in fact been implicated in two criminal cases.Invoking Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001, the Commandant terminated his services on October 18, 2016, by paying one month's salary in lieu of notice. His departmental appeal was also rejected.The Single Judge, however, had interfered with the termination after observing that the respondent's name did not exactly match the name of the accused shown in the criminal cases and that the Union of India had failed to establish his identity as the accused.Before the Division Bench, the Union of India argued that the respondent himself had admitted in his statutory appeal that he had been implicated in the criminal cases, albeit under another name, and had also relied upon his subsequent acquittal. It contended that the respondent had consciously suppressed material information in the attestation form despite a clear warning that furnishing false information or suppressing facts would render his services liable to termination.Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, which recognise the employer's right to terminate a probationer who suppresses material information relating to criminal antecedents.Accepting the Union's submissions, the High Court found that the respondent's own representation before the appellate authority demolished the very basis of his challenge.The Court noted that in his appeal, the respondent had specifically stated that he had been falsely implicated in criminal cases "with another name" and had further asserted that he was acquitted along with the other accused.The Bench observed:"Plain reading of the averments made in the appeal shows that the petitioner specifically asserted that he was also made involved in the false Criminal Case with another name."The Court held that once the respondent himself admitted his implication in the criminal cases, there was no occasion for the Single Judge to cast the burden on the Union of India to establish that he was an accused.Observing that the respondent had suppressed the pendency of the criminal cases while filling up the attestation form, the Bench held that such concealment attracted the consequences expressly stipulated in the form itself.The Court said: "We find non-mentioning of the fact of pendency of these criminal cases by the petitioner, to be an act of suppression inviting the consequence in terms of the 'warning' stated on the Attestation Form."The Division Bench further held that since the respondent was still on probation, the authorities were justified in terminating his services under Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the CISF Rules without conducting a departmental enquiry. It also held that the respondent's subsequent acquittal did not dilute the fact of suppression at the time of recruitment, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.Accordingly, the Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment and upheld the respondent's termination from service.Case Title: Union of India & Others v. Gujjudi VaraprasadCase No.: F.M.A. 697 of 2022Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Upholds Termination Of Probationary CISF Constable For Suppressing Criminal Cases In Attestation Form

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Calcutta High Court Upholds Termination Of Probationary CISF Constable For Suppressing Criminal Cases In Attestation Form

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers