Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 685 (JHR)

Ramesh Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2010-06-29

AMARESHSWAR SAHAY

body2010
JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 15.10.2005, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition whereby, the appointment of the petitioner as a Police Constable has been cancelled finding that his selection to the post of Constable was not made in legal manner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he successfully completed the written examination as well as physical test for being appointed as a Police Constable and thereafter, he was declared successful in the result published in the Daily News Paper on 12th December, 2004. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Pakur, sent him a fetter dated 17.04.2005, as contained in Annexure-3, directing him to appear on 26.04.2005 with all original certificates and other relevant documents. In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared on 26.04.2005. The petitioner was again medically examined and was found fit. Thereafter, his joining was accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Pakur He worked from 26.04.2005 to 26.05.2005 and, thereafter, was sent for training. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was undergoing training, the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Inspector General of Police, Dumka, by issue of Annexure-4 dated 15.10.2005 cancelled his appointment. The petitioner challenges the cancellation of his appointment on the ground that no prior notice was given to him and he was not even called upon to explain the allegations levelled against him. Therefore, the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner submits that his case is similar to the case of one Rupmala Kumari, who moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 259 of 2003 against cancellation of her appointment and this Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 24.03.2003 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. A copy of the said Order has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. 6. A copy of the said Order has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in which, it has been stated that the advertisement which was published in the News Paper inviting application for appointment of Constables, it was clearly mentioned in Clause 14 that if any criminal case is pending in the Police Station or the Court, then the applicant applying for the post of Constable, shall make his declaration about it, and if at any time, it is found that the fact has been suppressed or evaded by the applicant, then he would be declared unfit and he may be discharged from the service. 7. It is stated that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the fact that a criminal case was pending against him as Sahebganj Muffasil P.S. Case No. 23 dated 17.03.2003, in which the Chargesheet was also submitted under Sections 341, 342, 324, 307, 504 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A copy of the Chargesheet has been annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. It is stated that the character of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Since a criminal case was pending against him and this fact was suppressed by him deliberately and, therefore, he has been discharged from the service by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 8. It is stated that the appointment was obtained by the petitioner fraudulently by concealing the required information and therefore, as per the terms of the advertisement, no prior notice before cancellation of the appointment was required to be given. 9. A reply to the counter affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. In paragraph-8 thereof, it has been stated that after full fledged trial, he was acquitted from the criminal charges by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sahebganj on 3rd May, 2007 in S.C. Case No. 103 of 2005. Though the petitioner has stated in paragraph-8 that he is annexing the Judgment of the Trial Court but in fact, no such Judgment has been annexed with the reply to the counter affidavit and, therefore, this Court is not in a position to verify the correctness of the said fact. 10. Though the petitioner has stated in paragraph-8 that he is annexing the Judgment of the Trial Court but in fact, no such Judgment has been annexed with the reply to the counter affidavit and, therefore, this Court is not in a position to verify the correctness of the said fact. 10. From perusal of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit i.e. the Advertisement No. 1/04 inviting application for the post of Constable, it appears that at Column No. 14, it has specifically been stated that if any criminal case is pending against any candidates, then the said fact must be stated in the application. If in future Department receives any information that such fact has been suppressed by the candidates, then in that case, the candidate would be declared unfit. 11. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the Advertisement published in the year 2004. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that in the year 2004, a criminal case was pending against him and this fact was not stated by him in his application form while applying for the post of Police Constable. May be that subsequently, in the year 2007, he has been acquitted but the fact remains that on the date he made application for appointment as per advertisement published in the year 2004, a criminal case was pending against him in which chargesheet u/s 307 and other various Sections of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. 12. The petitioner has relied on an Order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition (Service) No. 259 of 2003 as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ petition, and has submitted that his case stands on the same footing. From perusal of the said order, it appears that the same is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner. In the said case, without any prior notice, the engagement of Anganbari Sevika was cancelled. In the said case, it is not known as to whether there was any such condition as in the present case. 13. In the present case, the allegation of suppression of fact and pendency of criminal case against the petitioner has not been denied by him and, therefore, the fact of the present case are quite different. The Order as contained in Annexure-5 is of no help to the petitioner. 14. 13. In the present case, the allegation of suppression of fact and pendency of criminal case against the petitioner has not been denied by him and, therefore, the fact of the present case are quite different. The Order as contained in Annexure-5 is of no help to the petitioner. 14. The Supreme Court, in the case of The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare-Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Sri Pindiga Sridhar and Others, 2007 (13) SCC 352 , while dealing with a case of termination from the service on the ground that the person had obtained compassionate appointment by suppressing the fact that his mother was already employed where he applied for employment and, therefore, his services was terminated without giving any notice or complying the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the candidate was not prejudiced by non observance of principles of natural justice. Show-cause notice could not have improved his case because the respondents have admitted the fact suppressed by him and, therefore, the termination was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the present case, as already noticed above, the; petitioner has not denied that fact that when he made the application for appointment, a criminal case was pending against him and this fact was not stated by him in the application, as required in the Advertisement inviting application and, therefore, it is clear that he suppressed this fact and as such, he made himself liable to be discharged from service in terms of Clause 14 of the Advertisement Annexure-A. Therefore, considering the analogy of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution (Supra), it is held that prior notice to show cause in the facts and circumstances of the present case was not necessary to be given to the petitioner since it could not have improved his case. The Supreme Court further held that it is well settled principle of law that principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula. Their applications depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the complaint of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that the representation was prejudicial for non observance of the principles of natural justice. No such prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner in the present case. 16. Their applications depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To sustain the complaint of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that the representation was prejudicial for non observance of the principles of natural justice. No such prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner in the present case. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.