According to case details, Rakesh Bariya was appointed armed police constable on contractual basis on a fixed salary of Rs2,500 on January 3, 2007.
In an important ruling, Justice Abhilasha Kumari of Gujarat high court has upheld the police department's decision to terminate the employment of a police constable for suppressing the fact that there had been a criminal complaint against him in the past.
According to case details, Rakesh Bariya was appointed armed police constable on contractual basis on a fixed salary of Rs2,500 on January 3, 2007. After two-and-a-half years, he was required to fill up an attestation form provided by the district superintendent of police of Narmada district.
The cop filled it up and submitted it to the district police chief. In answer to column no.10 of the form, he was required to state whether there was any criminal case pending against him in a court of law, and if so, the decision thereupon and the details of punishment, if any. In answer to this column, he wrote "No".
Bariya also produced a certificate of the Tilakwada police station stating that there was no case pending against him and he had not been convicted in any case. However, when the DSP conducted cross-verification, it was found that an FIR had been registered against Bariya in 2000 and he was acquitted on January 18, 2007.
When the DSP office asked for Bariya's explanation, he replied that the form was filled on November 4, 2009 and at that point of time, no criminal trial was pending against him. Also, since he had been acquitted he felt he need not declare the matter.
However, the explanation was not found satisfactory and the DSP's office on May 11, 2010, terminated Bariya's service. This decision was subsequently upheld by the DGP. Bariya approached Gujarat high court.
The judge, in her verdict, refused to accept his contention that, "There was no mala fide intention or suppression of facts on his part but only a bona fide misunderstanding for which his services do not deserve to be terminated." She observed, "Bariya has not disclosed full and true information, but has suppressed the factum of the criminal case filed against him."
The judge further said, "If column no.10 of the attestation form is perused, it is clear that it was incumbent upon him not only to disclose whether there was any criminal case pending at the relevant period of time, but also the decision of the criminal proceedings that took place earlier and whether any punishment was inflicted."
The fact that the candidate has to mention the decision and punishment inflicted in the criminal case makes it clear that it relates to a case that has already been concluded before the filling up of the form. Bariya had conveniently chosen to ignore the latter part of the question by answering the entire question in the negative, she said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}