Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 201 (PAT)

Ram Lakhan Yadav v. Union Of India

2001-03-02

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10th April, 1989 by the Commandant contained in Annexure 1, whereby he has been terminated from service as it was adversely reported upon in the verification roll received from the SSP District Gorakhpur (U.P) in which the individual was reported to have been charged under sections 380 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code vide Case No. 86/85 of Tewaripur Police Station, Gorakhpur (U.P.) and also the order passed by the appellate authority, contained in Annexure 2, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Commandant. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the selection test for recruitment as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force held at Mokamaghat and on being selected was appointed as CT/GD with effect from 3.2.1987 on purely temporary basis. His further case is that while continuing in service as a Constable he participated in All India Competition of Central Reserve Police Force in the group of Wrestler in August, 1988 and was ranked as best Wrestler on all India level. Later the police verification was conducted in regard to his antecedent and the police report conveyed the information that he was an accused alongwith other persons in Case No. 1751 of 1989 of the court of Sri K. Bhattacharya, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in regard to offences punishable under sections 380, 454 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the said case arose out of an altercation between the prosecution. party and Balkeshwar in regard to possession of the house and finally the said case ended in an acquittal of all the accused persons. The prosecution party and the accused persons are agnatic relations. However, by the impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, he was terminated from service on account of suppression of the fact about pendency of criminal case against him. According to the petitioner, there was no suppression of fact by him. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed without complying with even the Rules of natural justice though it casts stigma against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there was no suppression of fact by him. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it has been passed without complying with even the Rules of natural justice though it casts stigma against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact for such punishment a full dressed departmental proceeding was required to be done under Rule 27 of Chapter 6 of the C.R.P.F. rules. Yet the impugned order has been passed without even complying with the minimum requirement of the Rules of natural justice. In support of this he referred to the statement in paragraph 24 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the police information said to have been received by respondent no. 4 was never communicated to him nor was he enabled any opportunity of showing cause about the correctness or incorrectness thereof. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 in which and paragraph 24 has been answered in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit but it has not been denied that the petitioner was not given any opportunity. In fact it is admitted that there is no provision to give opportunity and issue show cause to a temporary Government servant whose service shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority. According to the case of the said respondents, the petitioner at the time of recruitment had furnished a false/fake information in verification roll and suppressed factual position in regard to his involvement in a Case No. FIR 86/85 under sections 380 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code of Towaripur Police Station, District Gorakhpur (U.P.). As such, his service disqualified under matter of law and no disciplinary proceeding was liable to be initiated against the temporary employee under Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. 5. Mr. Pathak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the verification roll which has been signed by the petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner suppressed the fact about involvement in the criminal case. 5. Mr. Pathak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the verification roll which has been signed by the petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner suppressed the fact about involvement in the criminal case. In this regard he referred to paragraph 12 of the said verification roll which required the petitioner to furnish the information as to whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution against which it is mentioned as No. He has referred to Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 12 of the said verification roll which provides to furnish information as to whether any case is pending in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this verification roll and against the same also it is mentioned as No. It is thus submitted that the petitioner on the face of the said verification roll as also there being no dispute in regard to the fact that a criminal case was pending against him on the date when he signed the said verification roll the compliance of the Rules of natural jsutice was not required as it would have been mere empty formality. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submitted that the petitioner is semiliterate person and he can hardly sign in Hindi; whereas the form was filled up in English by some one else. According to him the practice was that only signature from such person is used to be taken. It is submitted that in any view of the matter, if the petitioner would have given a show cause notice an opportunity before passing of the impugned order then he could have satisfied the authority that there is no suppression of fact by him. Moreover, in the said criminal case the name of the accused was not Ram Lakhan Yadav. In fact the name in the accused column was mentioned as Lakshan and as such if the petitioner would have been given an opportunity he could have satisfied the authority that there was no suppression of fact made by him. Moreover, in the said criminal case the name of the accused was not Ram Lakhan Yadav. In fact the name in the accused column was mentioned as Lakshan and as such if the petitioner would have been given an opportunity he could have satisfied the authority that there was no suppression of fact made by him. It is further submitted that even the rules relied upon in the impugned orders do not provide that such an order of discharge with stigma can be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Anoop Jaiswal vs. Government of India & anr., reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 636 , the Apex Court even held that "the form of the order is not decisive as to whether the order is by way of punishment and that even an innocuously worded order terminating the service may in the fact and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provision of Article 311(2)." It has been held that" the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order and that such type of order of discharge if the service has not been accorded as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution." 8. In the instant case the impugned orders themselves show that the stigma has been casted upon the petitioner and that before issuing the same the petitioner has never even given any opportunity to show cause. As such, in my opinion, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and the same are fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 9. The Apex Court in the case of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. & ors. vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava, reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 1039 held : "Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the Rule of Law." 10. vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava, reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 1039 held : "Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the Rule of Law." 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority who may pass a fresh order after complying with the rules of natural jutice. If no fresh action is taken by the disciplinary authority within a period of two months of the receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/order, by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner with respect to the alleged charge, the petitioner will be entitled for full back wages which shall be paid to him on completion of the said period.