Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 81 (UTT)

Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. State

2004-05-28

P.C.VERMA, RAJESH TANDON

body2004
JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. Both these special appeals arising out of the common judgment dated 1.8.2003, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that petitioners appellants were selected on the post of constables Police Department and they were sent for training by Rawangi Aadesh on 18.10.2001 and since 20.10.2001 they were under training and on completion they were to appear in final examination. Petitioners have also rendered their services in the general elections held in the year 2002 for state legislative assembly. 3. On 8.4.2002, under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, their services were terminated forthwith and they were paid a sum equivalent to the amount of their pay plus allowances, for the period of the notice at the same rate on which they were drawing immediately before the termination of their services. 4. Petitioners have submitted that the orders of termination have been passed arbitrarily and illegally without showing any cause against the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the orders being illegal and without jurisdiction need to be quashed. 5. The Hon'ble single Judge after considering the entire evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has held that the impugned termination orders were passed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the appointing authority and the orders do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and accordingly dismissed the Writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Appeal inter alia on the grounds that the appellants had no knowledge or information that any F.I.R. had ever been lodged against the appellants and investigation against them. The order of termination is a colourable exercise of powers by the respondents and is in fact an order of dismissal for the allegations of misconduct and non-disclosure by the appellant in an affidavit. The appellants were not given any opportunity of defence or hearing and the Impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and that the Hon'ble Single Judge in his judgment dated 1.8.2003 failed to appreciate the factual position and legal aspect and the order passed is erroneous and cannot be upheld. 6. The appellants were not given any opportunity of defence or hearing and the Impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and that the Hon'ble Single Judge in his judgment dated 1.8.2003 failed to appreciate the factual position and legal aspect and the order passed is erroneous and cannot be upheld. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The status and details of criminal cases against the petitioners reproduced as under: Petition Name of the Date of Criminal Under Sec. Result No. petitioners termination cases order 273/02 Kuldeep 8.4.2002 Final report 147, 148, 308, Final report Kumar 15/99 324, 504 IPC & accepted on 3(1)10 SC/ST 31.03.01 by Act ACJM Devband 277/02 Rishi Sharma 8.4.2002 Crime No. 323, 504, 506, Acquittal on 74/99 Cr. case 427 IPC 4.4.2001 by 1151/99 1st 8. G.O. dated April 28, 1958 on the subject relating to verification of character of the Government servant, at first appointment, require furnishing of information about the character antecedents etc. of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this connection, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action that may be considered necessary by the competent authority. 9. It is admitted fact that the petitioners were named as accused and were involved in criminal cases described in the chart above. The petitioners have filed affidavits before the appointing authority in which they have intentionally suppressed information regarding criminal cases registered against them. The involvement of the petitioners in the above mentioned criminal cases came to light when verification of their characters were made. 10. Admittedly the appellants have suppressed information about their involvement in criminal cases and they filed false affidavits before the appointing authority. Question of any show cause notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioners in the circumstances did not arise and it was immaterial that the petitioners were not finally convicted for any offence of moral turpitude. 11. The petitioners have taken defence that at the time of submitting application for recruitment they have no knowledge regarding any criminal case under investigation against them and as such the charge of concealing information intentionally is not made out against the petitioners. 11. The petitioners have taken defence that at the time of submitting application for recruitment they have no knowledge regarding any criminal case under investigation against them and as such the charge of concealing information intentionally is not made out against the petitioners. We have summoned the case diary of Criminal Case No. 15 of 1999, under section 147, 148, 308, 324 and 3( 1) (x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against accused Kuldeep Singh and case diary of criminal case No. 27 of 2001 under section 420, 465, 471 and 420 B against accused Devendra Kumar. We have gone through the case diaries. A perusal of page 14/15 of case diary of criminal case no. 15 of 1999 shows that accused Kuldeep Singh had knowledge that a criminal case is being investigated against him. The relevant portion of the case diary reads as under: 12. Similarly a perusal of case diary of criminal case no. 27 of 2001 against Sri Devendra Kumar shows that his father and mother have given their statements before the Investigating Officer and Devendra Kumar was absconding. Relevant statement in the case diary is quoted below: 13. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the appellants was temporary and their services could be terminated under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 at any time without assigning any reason. Temporary Government servant have no right to hold the post and their services are liable to be terminated at any time by giving them one month's notice without assigning any reason. The Apex Court in the cases of State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore 1991 (1) S.C.C. 691 and Triveni Shankar Sexena vs. State of U.P. AIR 1992 SC 496, held that the termination simpliciter is not a penalty and the Government has power and jurisdiction under the rules to terminate the service of a temporary Government servant without conducting an enquiry and such termination does not amount to termination for misconduct. The Apex Court has held as under: "A temporary government servant has no right to hold the post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving him one month's notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary government servants. A temporary government servant can, however, be dismissed from service by way of punishment. Whenever, the com Detent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public Interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services In accordance with the terms and conditions of the service or the relevant rules or it may decide to take punitive action against the temporary government servant. " 14. The Apex Court following the decisions in the case of State of U.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore (supra) has held in the case Union of India and others vs. A.P. Bajpai and others, 2003 SCC (L&S) 182 as under: "It is not in dispute that the appointment of Respondent no. 1 was temporary and his services could be terminated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules. The order of termination of Respondent 1 by its own terms was termination simpliciter. The Tribunal in the impugned order relied on the statement made by the appellants in their counter affidavit to support the order of termination' of services, annexing Annexure C-3. There was no other material or circumstances before the Tribunal to take a view that the order of termination was not simpliciter and that any stigma was attached to Respondent 1 in terminating his services. This court in State of V.P. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla dealing with the case of termination of service of a temporary employee in terms of contract as well as under the relevant rules applicable to a temporary government servant held that the allegations made against. the temporary Government servant)n the counter affidavit by way of defence filed on behalf of the appellants did not change the nature and character of the order of termination: " 15. The Hon'ble Single Judge has discussed all legal aspects of the case in his judgment we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge. 16. The Apex Court in the case Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 has held that Suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents is a major offence for which punishment may extend to dismissal from service. 16. The Apex Court in the case Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 has held that Suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents is a major offence for which punishment may extend to dismissal from service. The Apex Court has held as under: "The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. ************************ The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. " 17. The judgment in the case Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) has further been followed in the case B.R. Chowdhury vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 2004, AIR SCW 886. It has been held as under: "This Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 while dealing with the effect of suppression of material information took a view that the purpose of seeking information cannot be defeated which has bearing on the selection. Added to this, if only the appellant had given correct information about status of his occupation as on the relevant date as rightly held by the learned single Judge which view was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, possibly the position would have been different. At any rate, the appellant is bound by his own affidavit and the Memorandum of Agreement mentioned above. " 18. The Hon'ble Single Judge has not erred in law by dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants. We are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners appellant. 19. In our considered view, the impugned order does not suffer any error of law and infirmity. The special appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.