Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 190 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Khatik v. State of M. P.

2003-01-29

K.K.LAHOTI

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order (Annexure P-1) passed by Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and appeal and revision filed against were also dismissed by Collector, Hoshangabad by order (Annexure P-4) and by Commissioner, Hoshangabad, in Revision No. 8/nigrani/2001-2002 (Annexure P-6) on 6-6-2002. ( 2. ) THE allegation against the petitioner is that in column No. 12 of Form (Annexure R/4-1), he concealed the information that the criminal case was pending against him under Sections 324/34 and 294, IPC on the date when he was appointed as per order (Annexure R/4-3) 30th July, 1998. After submitting the Form (Annexure R/4-1) the authority enquired from the police and as per report (Annexure R/4-5) dated 1-2-99, Inspector General, Bhopal informed to the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya, Hoshangabad that a criminal case against petitioner under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324 and 506/34, IPC is registered at Police Station, Pipariya at Crime No. 375/96 and the petitioner is disqualified to be appointed on the post. On receiving the said information, order dated 23-2-99 (Annexure P-1) was issued and petitioners services were terminated. ( 3. ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid information could not be given bona fidely. The petitioner was appointed initially vide order (Annexure R/4-2) on 14-11-1996. Thereafter he continued in the next session. On knowing it that the aforesaid information could not be filed by the petitioner, the petitioner himself brought into the notice of the authority that the aforesaid criminal case was pending against him which was decided on 5-1-1999 and the petitioner has been acquitted. This information was submitted by the petitioner by Annexure P-2 on 18-14999 to the Block Education Officer, Pipariya, but in spite of this without considering the fact of acquittal, the authority terminated the services of the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 on 23-2-1999. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor his application (Annexure P-2) was considered by the authorities. ( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner, in support of his contention has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246 and Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr. ( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner, in support of his contention has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246 and Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr. , 1999 AIR SCW 474, Regional Manager, Bankofbaroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr. , (1999) 2 SCC 247 and Division Benchs judgment of this Court in Jagdish Ram Sahu v. State of M. P. and Ors. , 2000 (3) MPLJ 21 and contended that there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner and by mistake information could not be filled in. The petitioner himself has informed to the authorities in respect of pendency of criminal case and his acquittal by the Trial Court. The Apex Court while considering the legal position in Dhaval Singhs case (supra) held :- ( 5. ) THAT there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column in the application form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15-11-1995 to the appellant that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as "information". Despite receipt of this communication, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on 20-11-1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have considered that application and apply its mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an inadvertent mistake before passing the order. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the Trial Court--it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the Trial Court--it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. In vain, have we searched through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the other record for any observation relating to the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 and whether that application could not be treated as curing the defect which had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication was disposed of either. Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold, the order of the Tribunal, though for slightly different reasons, as mentioned above. " 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Ram Sahus case (supra) held :- " that the services of the petitioner should not have been terminated. Once the petitioner was acquitted, no further information was required. Moreover, the cases did not involve moral turpitude disentitling him from employment. Similar situation arose in W. P. No. 4191/99, Ramratan Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Ors. , decided on 25-7-2000. After considering the matter following Apex court judgment reported in AIR 1999 SCW 474 , Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr. , the petition was allowed and respondents were directed to employ the petitioner from the date of initial appointment with consequential benefits. " ( 6. ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid settled law by the Apex Court and this Court, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed on 14-11-1996 for which interview was held long back. Petitioner continued in service on 30th June, 1997 for another session. He was appointed regularly vide order dated 30-7-1998 (Annexure R/4-3 ). " ( 6. ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid settled law by the Apex Court and this Court, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed on 14-11-1996 for which interview was held long back. Petitioner continued in service on 30th June, 1997 for another session. He was appointed regularly vide order dated 30-7-1998 (Annexure R/4-3 ). It is true that the petitioner did not supply the information which was necessary to be supplied to the respondents and from the perusal of column No. 12 of the form, it appears that petitioner has not filled in any information regarding registration of crime at police station but it appears that before the order of termination dated 23-2-99 (Annexure P-1), petitioner himself informed to the authorities that a criminal case was registered against him which has been decided on 5-1-1999. Along with the letter dated 18-1-99 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner enclosed copy of the judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pipariya, Distt. Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 2017/98, decided on 5-1-99. From the perusal of it, it appears that there was compromise between the parties and offence under Section 324/34, IPC was directed to be compounded and the case was tried under Section 294, IPC, but the petitioner was acquitted by the Court. It is also not disputed before me that before passing order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor he was heard in respect of the alleged lapse on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner could have convinced the authorities that the aforesaid lapse was bona fidely and the case has been decided in which he has been acquitted of the charges. ( 7. ) TERMINATING the services of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing is apparently bad in law and the order dated 23-2-1999 (Annexure P-1) which has been passed without following the principle of natural justice, is liable to be quashed. There appears to be bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner in not filling column No. 12 of the form for which petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide Annexure P-1. ( 8. ) IN view of the settled position of law, the order dated 23-2-99 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed and accordingly it quashed. ( 8. ) IN view of the settled position of law, the order dated 23-2-99 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be quashed and accordingly it quashed. It is directed that the petitioner be reinstated in the service. As the petitioner has not worked after passing the termination order (P-1), he will not be entitled for any back wages. But the aforesaid period will be counted for other ancillary purposes. ( 9. ) THIS petition is allowed in part, with no order as to costs.