Summary
A CISF constable, appointed in 2007, had not disclosed in his character verification that a criminal case under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC was pending against him. After a fresh enquiry ordered in revision, he was removed from service. On reconsideration in the light of Avtar Singh, the authority again found him unsuitable. A Single Judge ordered his reinstatement, and the Division Bench reversed that order. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition. Applying Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav, it held that deliberate suppression bears on character and suitability, especially in a sensitive, disciplined force. Generalisations about youth and career prospects should not drive the outcome. Without mala fides, unfairness or breach of rules, judicial review does not extend to the merits of the decision or the penalty.
Issues
- Whether removal of a CISF constable for suppressing, at the time of appointment, the pendency of a criminal case against him called for interference in judicial review.
Provisions considered
- Rules 36 and 54, Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001A charge memorandum for suppression was issued under Rule 36, and the revisional authority suo motu ordered a fresh enquiry under Rule 54, culminating in removal. (¶ 2)
- Articles 226 and 136, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision or the quantum of penalty, absent mala fides, perversity, breach of natural justice or of statutory rules (Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, B.C. Chaturvedi, Om Kumar, Ajai Kumar Srivastava). (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- Under Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav, information about pending criminal cases must be true; suppression bears on character and suitability; the employer may consider antecedents even after acquittal; and generalisations about youth, age and career prospects should not lead to condonation in the judicial verdict. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The authority's reasoned decision, noting deliberate suppression as an aggravating circumstance and the CISF's deployment in sensitive sectors requiring the highest discipline, should not have been interfered with by the Single Judge, there being no mala fides, breach of natural justice or of statutory rules. (¶¶ 9, 13)
Result
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022 against the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench judgment dated 16.11.2021 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 637 of 2021 dismissed, leaving the order of removal intact.