Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 371 (MP)

Pradeep Soni v. Canara Bank

2006-03-09

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2006
ORDER 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 8.4.2005 and 8.7.2005 Annexure P-l and P-2 respectively. It has further been prayed to direct the respondents to appoint petitioner on the post of Probationary Law Officer in Junior Management Grade I as per annexure P-6. 2. As per the case of the petitioner vide advertisement dated 19.5.2004 respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for various posts in the Bank. The petitioner being a law graduate and having requisite qualification for the recruitment to the post of Law Officer (Junior Management Scale-I) applied for the post (Code No. 06) i.e. Law Officer. The petitioner applied as an OBC candidate and he submitted all the requisite documents as desired in Annexure P-3. The petitioner was called for written examination which he passed and thereafter he was called for an interview which was held on 3.1.2005. On this date the petitioner appeared in the interview and he also submitted his Bio-data in the format of Annexure P-5. The respondents have filed the photocopy of the Bio-data which was submitted by the petitioner as Annexure R-l. 3. In the Bio-data (Annexure R-l) at point No. 18.a, there is a clause that whether the candidate has been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined/convicted by a Court o flaw or whether any case is pending against him in a Court of law? If yes, the candidate was required to give the details. According to the petitioner while submitting the Bio-data Annexure R-l he was under impression that if there is any conviction, fine, etc. or if any case is pending, then it has to be mentioned as desired and therefore, the petitioner filled "No" against the said column. The petitioner was found fit for appointment as a result of which appointment letter Annexure P-6 dated 5th March, 2005 was issued to him. According to Annexure P-6 the petitioner was required to comply with certain formalities and was required to send attestation form which he sent. According to the petitioner, under the same belief, the petitioner against column No. 12 of the said attestation form Annexure R-2 wrote "No". According to Annexure P-6 the petitioner was required to comply with certain formalities and was required to send attestation form which he sent. According to the petitioner, under the same belief, the petitioner against column No. 12 of the said attestation form Annexure R-2 wrote "No". As per the petitioner, he read in newspaper regarding some case of High Court that information with regard to any proceeding of criminal nature has to be furnished even if an incumbent is acquitted. Realising his bona fide mistake and to avoid any further complication and to keep his record clean, he sent a letter dated 5.4.2005 by Fax as well as by speed post (Annexure P-8) to the respondents intimating the authorities in detail about his criminal case and inforn1ed that he was prosecuted under section 3D of Madhya Pradesh Manyta Prapt Prakisha Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 1984 (in short the Adhiniyam). However, since there was no evidence available against him, he was acquitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur in the said case on 21.3.2002. A copy of the judgment of the said Criminal Case No. 90/ 98 has been placed on record along with the Annexure P-8. 4. The respondents on coming to know that the petitioner concealed the reality in regard to his prosecution and supplied wrong information, an impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 8.4.2005 was issued and the selection of the petitioner for the post of Probationary law Officer in Junior Management Scale I was cancelled. The petitioner preferred an appeal seeking reconsideration of his appointment to the post of Law Officer but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2005 (Annexure P-2). Hence this petition is filed. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P-6 dated 5th March, 2005 but he did not avail the employment and did not join the services and sent a letter Annexure P-8 addressed to A.G.M. (personnel) by fax as well as by speed post. Hence this petition is filed. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P-6 dated 5th March, 2005 but he did not avail the employment and did not join the services and sent a letter Annexure P-8 addressed to A.G.M. (personnel) by fax as well as by speed post. It has been contended that in Annexure P-8 all the facts and circumstances were mentioned intimating that in what circumstances and bona fide belief the incorrect information regard to prosecution was supplied by the petitioner and therefore since before joining the service he explained how and in what manner the incorrect particulars were supplied, the case of the petitioner cannot be stretched to the extent of concealing reality and supplying wrong information deliberately and therefore it has been prayed that the impugned order Annexure P-l dated 8.4.2005 cancelling his selection and the order Annexure P-2 dated 8.7.2005 dismissing his representation be quashed and the respondents be directed to give effect to appointment letter Annexure P-6. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police. Delhi and another v. Dhaval Singh [ (1999) 1 SCC 246 ]. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Laxmi Narayan Bajpai v. State of M.P. and others [ 2004 (3) MPHT 312 ]. 6. Per contra Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel appearing for respondents by inviting attention to the averments made in the return as well as Annexure R-l and R-2 wherein twice the petitioner supplied wrong information denying the fact of his prosecution, has submitted that since the petitioner concealed the reality and did not give the correct particulars regarding his prosecution on the contrary by writing "No" denied that he was ever prosecuted, therefore he is not entitled for any relief and it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on following decisions: (i) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav [ 2003 (I) JLJ 403 = (2003) 3 SCC 437 ]. (ii) A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Vellkateswarulu and others [ (2005) 7 SCC 177 ]. (iii) Secretary Department of home Secretary A.P. and others v. B. Chinnam Naidu [ (2005) 2 SCC 746 ]. (ii) A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Vellkateswarulu and others [ (2005) 7 SCC 177 ]. (iii) Secretary Department of home Secretary A.P. and others v. B. Chinnam Naidu [ (2005) 2 SCC 746 ]. (iv) B.R. Chowdhury v. India Oil Corporation Ltd. and others [ (2004) 2 SCC 177 ]. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. No doubt it is true that in the bio data Annexure R-l in column No. 18.a, the petitioner has written "No" which would mean that he was never prosecuted and arrested and the same thing is mentioned in the attestation form (part of Annexure R-2) but it is equally true that despite the appointment letter annexure P-6 dated 5.3.2005 was received by the petitioner, he did not join the services though he could have joined the same. On the contrary on 5.4.2005 he sent an application-letter Annexure P-8 to A.G.M. (Personnel) not only by fax but also by Speed Post giving details of the bona fide mistake how and in what manner the same occurred. On going through Annexure P-8 it is found that he was arrested by PS Mugwani district Narsinghpur in connection with Crime No. 29/97 dated 6.3.1997 under the said Adhiniyam, but his name did not find place in the FIR. It was further explained that he was arrested and on the same day he was released on bail by JMFC Narsinghpur. Later on, the charge sheet was filed and he was charged under section 3D and 4 of the said Adhiniyam and was tried by CJM Narsinghpur. However, since there was no iota of evidence against the petitioner and the prosecution utterly failed to prove any role of the petitioner, he was acquitted from the charges holding that he did not commit any offence. The judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was also made part of the fax letter Annexure P-8. 9. In the application-letter Annexure P-8 it has been further clarified by the petitioner that under bona fide oversight and confusion and under the bona fide belief that since he has been acquitted, his character cannot be shadowed and thus the said wrong information was supplied by him. 9. In the application-letter Annexure P-8 it has been further clarified by the petitioner that under bona fide oversight and confusion and under the bona fide belief that since he has been acquitted, his character cannot be shadowed and thus the said wrong information was supplied by him. It has also been explained that the incorrect information was not intentional or to mislead the respondents who is his prospective employer and therefore clarification was submitted by him. It was further cleared in the said letter/application that as a matter of trust and confidence between the employer and employee which he does not want to lose at any cost and not to keep the prospective employer in dark regarding his antecedents, he is sending the requisite information. In para 11 of the application/letter Annexure P-8, it has been further submitted by the petitioner that the information furnished in para 3 and 4 of the said application Annexure P-8 may be treated as amendment or part of column of attestation form and also in other forms wherever it is relevant. Thus, in my opinion, the nature of application-letter Annexure P-8 can be said to be a supplement to the Bio data Annexure R-l and the attestation form (Annexure R-2) and if that is the position, it cannot be said that there was any suppression of fact or supplying the incorrect or wrong information in regard to the arrest and prosecution of the petitioner. 10. One important unfolded fact cannot be marginalized and blinked away that though the petitioner received the appointment letter Annexure P-6 dated 5th March, 2005, but, he did not join his services though he could have joined the same. On the contrary he supplied the correct facts vide Annexure P-8 to his prospective employer. The matter would have been quite different if after reaping the fruits of the employment in future, these impugned fact would have been exposed and thereafter any explanation would have been provided by the petitioner. In that situation it could have been said that petitioner has no case. But, in the present case the situation is quite different. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner did not join the service though he was having appointment letter in his hand and he would have joined the service. But, he supplied the correct information to his proposed employer. In that situation it could have been said that petitioner has no case. But, in the present case the situation is quite different. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner did not join the service though he was having appointment letter in his hand and he would have joined the service. But, he supplied the correct information to his proposed employer. Thus, the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) relied by learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present factual scenario for the simple reason in this case the employee before joining his services did not disclose his antecedents. On the contrary, during the service tenure it waS found that the incumbent concealed the reality. The case of B. Chinnam Naidu (supra) is also distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances because in the said case the prosecution of the delinquent was pending. The case of Koneti Venkateswarulu (supra) is not applicable for the reason that the incumbent concealed the reality that he was working elsewhere. He was selected to the post of Woman and Child Welfare Officer but before he could be notified about the result, the Commission came to know about the said suppression of the information by the delinquent issued a notice to show cause why his candidature should not be cancelled. But in the present facts the petitioner himself submitted application Annexure P-8 explaining the cause of supplying the information in Annexure R-1 and R-2. The decision of B.R. Chowdhury (supra) is also not' applicable because of suppression of certain facts the dealership of petrol pump was terminated. This decision is not having any relevance in the present facts and circumstances. 11. It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that if in the Bio data Annexure R-1 and the attestation form Annexure R-2 the details of the judgment of acquittal would have been supplied by the petitioner, he would have been appointed. I have already held hereinabove the nature of letter-application Annexure P-8 is nothing but the supplement to Bio data Annexure R-1 and attestation form (Annexure R-2). In this view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that there was any intention concealing the reality of the true facts. I have already held hereinabove the nature of letter-application Annexure P-8 is nothing but the supplement to Bio data Annexure R-1 and attestation form (Annexure R-2). In this view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that there was any intention concealing the reality of the true facts. In the case of Dhaval Singh (supra) placed reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner, the incumbent voluntarily conveyed that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pending of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as information. In the present case also, I have held hereinabove that the letter/application Annexure P-8 dated 5.4.2005 is treated as supplement to the Bio-data Annexure R-1 and attestation form Annexure R-2. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 dated 8.4.2005 respectively are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed that if petitioner joins his service in pursuance to Annexure P-6, he may be allowed to join on the post of Probationary Law Officer in Junior Management Grade I from the date he submits his joining. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.