Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 205 (MP)

Dheeraj Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

2010-02-18

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2010
ORDER Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby and where under the Petitioner has been terminated from the service. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the Petitioner, are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner applied for the post of Peon. After due scrutiny, by call letter dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure P-2) the Petitioner was asked to appear in the office of Court Superintendent, Kanker on 7.2.2007 for examination/interview. On being selected in the selection process, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon by order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure P-3). However, all of a sudden by order dated 5.10.2009 the Petitioner has been terminated from the service on the ground that Petitioner has suppressed the material fact in column No. 12 of the verification form about imposition of fine under the provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act in a Criminal Case No. 1366/2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker. Thus, this petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that it is the duty of the authority concerned to give opportunity to show cause to adversely affected person. In the present case, the Petitioner has been removed after completion of two years of service, without complying with the principles of natural justice. The action of the Respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information with regard to imposition of fine by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Required information in Column No. 12 is specific inquiry and it was case of no confusion. Thus, suppression of the material information entail removal from service, as clearly prescribed in the appointment order. The Petitioner has not attempted to remove the mistake voluntarily. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts in Column No. 12 of the verification form. The Petitioner has not attempted to remove the mistake voluntarily. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts in Column No. 12 of the verification form. The Petitioner had, thereafter, not submitted any representation or filed a letter immediately, voluntarily to give the correct information. 7. The Petitioner accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Clause 5 of the appointment order in clear terms kept the Petitioner informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. 8. The candidate suppressing material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer has discretion to terminate his service. In the case on hand, this was not a case of pending trial, which resulted into acquittal from the case. This is a case where the Petitioner was convicted before making the application for selection. The Petitioner deliberately concealed the facts. Thus, it is a case of suppresio veri and suggeslio falsi and further, even if by ignorance, the Petitioner has failed to submit the information, he ought to have submitted the correct information later on before the date of his selection. Thus, no notice is required to be issued to the Petitioner before passing the order of termination, where the facts are admitted or not in dispute. 9. The Supreme Court in Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 337 , observed as under : 22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Liven the principle of estoppels will apply. [See Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash]. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case [See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa] 10. The ratio laid down in Viveka Nand Sethi (supra), was referred with approval in P.D. Agrawal v. State Dank of India and Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 776 . 11. The ratio laid down in Viveka Nand Sethi (supra), was referred with approval in P.D. Agrawal v. State Dank of India and Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 776 . 11. The Supreme Court inKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 , observed as under : 12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his service, which is made expressly clear in Para 9 of the offer of appointment. 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. 12. This Court in Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. State of C.G. and Ors., 2007 (1) CGLJ 440 , observed that "the Petitioner had obtained the appointment by suppressing information and submitting false information. Thus, the services of the Petitioner were rightly terminated being in violation of the condition No. 4 of the appointment order". 13. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is meritless and, as such, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.