Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 312 (GAU)

State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kuru Talum

2007-04-26

I.A.ANSARI, ZELRE ANGAMI

body2007
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The respondent herein was appointed as a Constable Driver by order, dated 06.03.1999, issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Itanagar. While the respondent was serving as a Constable Driver on the strength of such appointment, he was served with order, dated 24.01.2001, whereby his service was terminated on the ground that he was alleged to be involved in a criminal case, but he had suppressed this vital information, while filing up the attestation form at the time of seeking appointment. The writ petitioner impugned the said order of termination, dated 24.01.2001, by making a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 39(AP) 2001. The appellants herein, as respondents in the said writ petition, resisted the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition. 2. By order, dated 29.04.2005, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, dated 24.01.2001, aforementioned, and directed re-instatement of the petitioner in service. Aggrieved by the directions so given, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent. 4. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be pointed out, at the very outset, is that the learned Single Judge has interfered with the order, dated 24.01.2001, aforementioned on two grounds, namely, (i) that the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents did not state if the writ petitioner had been given any opportunity of hearing by serving a notice to show cause on him; and (ii) that an order of termination of service entails civil consequence and hence, termination of service is not permissible in law without giving any opportunity to show cause and/or hearing to the person, whose service is sought to be terminated. 5. 5. In the backdrop of the reasons assigned for interfering with the order, dated 24.01.2001, when we peruse the record, we find that it had been clearly averred by the present appellants, in their affidavit, that a criminal case bearing No. Ziro P.S. Case No. 03/96 under Sections 25(1)B(A)/29(B)of Arms Act had been registered against the writ petitioner and that the writ petitioner, having been arrested in connection with the said case, was brought before Court and upon his being produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ziro, on 23.01.1996, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail bond. This apart, the appellants herein had also averred, in their affidavit-in-opposition, that prior to the termination of the petitioner's service, he had been given a notice, dated 15.05.2000, to show-cause by Commandant, 1st IRBN, Namchangmukh. In the face of the clear averments so made by the appellants in their affidavit, it was manifestly incorrect to hold that no notice to show-cause had been given to the writ petitioner. 6. What is also imperative to note is that the writ petitioner did not file any affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the present appellants. The writ petitioner's plea, as reflected in the writ petition, was that even if there was a case registered against him, he was not aware of the same. In the face, however, of the clear and undenied averments of the appellants that the writ petitioner had been arrested in connection with the case aforementioned, the writ petitioner's plea that he was not aware of the case aforementioned is palpably false. This apart, the writ petitioner, nowhere, denies or disputes that he had been arrested in connection with the case aforementioned. Situated thus, it is clear that the writ petitioner had, while filling up the attestation form, concealed the fact that a case was pending against him and he had, in fact, been arrested in connection with the said case. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner's appointment was liable to be terminated, for, the petitioner's selection was in a disciplined force, such as, police and the conditions of his appointment clearly indicated that his appointment was subject to verification by police and if any adverse remark was received regarding his character and antecedent later on, his service was liable to be terminated. 7. 7. In view of the fact that there was overwhelming materials on record showing that the petitioner had stood arrested in the criminal case aforementioned and he had made false statement in his attestation form and in view of also the fact that the appellants had clearly proved that the termination of the petitioner's service preceded by a notice to show-cause, interference with the order of termination of the petitioner's service, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was neither legal nor justified. 8. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, we set aside the order, dated 29.04.2005, aforementioned and maintain the impugned order, dated 24.01.2001, whereby the petitioner's service stood terminated. 9. The appeal is, thus, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Before parting with this appeal, we also make it clear that if the petitioner has been already re-instated in service in compliance with the directions passed in the order, dated 29.04.2005, aforementioned, his re-instatement shall stand terminated with immediate effect and further necessary orders, in this regard, may be passed accordingly by the appropriate authority. Appeal allowed.