Delhi High Court upholds jurisdiction in termination case due to information suppression on Attestation Form.

The Delhi High Court affirmed its jurisdiction in a case where a petitioner's termination from service for suppressing information in the Attestation Form was challenged. The court referred to relevant Supreme Court decisions and set aside the termination orders, remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQrs, Chennai, in accordance with the Avtar Singh guidelines. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit a representation within three weeks, with the Inspector General instructed to dispose of the representation within three months, allowing the petitioner to challenge any adverse decision in the future.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Suppression of facts in the Attestation Form.
3. Application of Supreme Court guidelines in Avtar Singh's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The respondents questioned the maintainability of the petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan, and the termination order was passed by authorities based in Tamil Nadu. However, the court rejected this submission, citing that the headquarters of CISF is located in Delhi. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Abrar Ali vs. CISF & Ors.', which confirmed that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction as per Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court cited the decision in 'Charanjit Singh Aulakh vs. Director General, CISF Headquarter', reiterating its jurisdiction due to the location of CISF headquarters within its territory.

2. Suppression of Facts in the Attestation Form:
The petitioner was terminated from service for not disclosing his involvement in a criminal case in the Attestation Form. The case was registered on 10.03.2006 under Sections 323/341/325/447/34 IPC and was compounded, resulting in his acquittal on 31.03.2006. The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the case at the time of filling the form and did not intentionally suppress the information. The court noted that the petitioner was 18 years and two months old at the time of the incident, which was a family quarrel and was amicably settled soon after. Despite this, the appointing authority found his explanation unsatisfactory and terminated his services citing suppression of factual information.

3. Application of Supreme Court Guidelines in Avtar Singh's Case:
The petitioner requested that his case be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines in 'Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.', which address the issue of suppression of information or submitting false information regarding criminal cases in verification forms. The Supreme Court's guidelines emphasize that:
- Information provided must be true and not suppressed.
- Employers should consider special circumstances and relevant government orders/rules.
- In trivial cases, suppression may be condoned.
- For non-trivial convictions, services may be terminated.
- Acquittals on technical grounds should be scrutinized.
- Truthful declarations allow employers to consider antecedents.
- Deliberate suppression, especially with multiple cases, can lead to termination.
- Unknown pending cases may still impact employment decisions.
- Confirmed employees require a departmental inquiry before termination for suppression.
- Only specific required information must be disclosed.
- Knowledge of facts must be attributable to the individual.

The court set aside the impugned orders dated 11.10.2014 and 02.01.2015, remanding the matter to the Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQrs, Chennai, for reexamination in light of the Avtar Singh guidelines. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation within three weeks, explaining how his case fits within these guidelines and why his termination was unjustified. The Inspector General was instructed to dispose of the representation within three months. The court clarified that the petitioner could challenge any adverse order as per law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to make a representation for reconsideration of his case under the Supreme Court's guidelines. The court maintained no order as to costs and provided the petitioner with the opportunity to challenge any future adverse decisions.

---