Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1143 (JHR)

Ramadhar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-21

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
ORDER The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders dated 25.5.2011 and 5.9.2011, by which he has been dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal has been confirmed by the appellate authority, has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed in terms of an advertisement after following all procedures of law. After appointment, he had been discharging his duty. However, he had been served with a memorandum of charge alleging therein that at the time of submission of application form, he had suppressed one fact relating to his involvement in a criminal case in connection with Mohammadganj P.S. Case No.8/08 registered under Sections 216/216-A/386. IPC and Section 17 of the CLA Act. He was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner, wherein the column pertaining to criminal antecedent had been marked as cross (x), meaning thereby, the petitioner was not involved in a criminal case, found the charge proved against the petitioner. In view thereof, by giving specific finding, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 25.5.2011. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the impugned order dated 25.5.2011, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2011. It has been submitted that although the petitioner had given a wrong declaration at the time of filling up the application form. but subsequently he had been acquitted in the said criminal case by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction by the judgment dated 14.6.2011, as such the ground taken by the authority concerned for dismissing the petitioner from service is not proper and that would lead to civil consequence. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 and Ram Kumar v. State of U.P & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2903 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner bring a candidate was supposed to come with clean hands by giving correct declarations. v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 and Ram Kumar v. State of U.P & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2903 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner bring a candidate was supposed to come with clean hands by giving correct declarations. Admittedly, on the date of filling up the application form, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, but in the specific column meant for the same, the petitioner had not mentioned regarding his involvement in the said criminal case, as such he had tried to suppress the material fact. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363 . 4. Heard the parties, perused the record. 5. An advertisement had been published by the respondents authority for filling up the posts of constables. The petitioner had submitted his application form in the prescribed application format wherein a column had been made as to whether the candidate has remained in judicial custody or not. The petitioner had marked this column as cross (x) in the application form, meaning thereby, the petitioner had tried to suppress the fact regarding his involvement in the said criminal case. For getting appointment, it is expected from a candidate that he should come before the authority with all material facts without suppressing anything. The act, which the petitioner had done, is not supposed to be an act of a bona fide public servant. When it was found by the authority concerned, that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact, a memorandum of charge had been submitted to the petitioner making specific allegation against him regarding his involvement in the said criminal case. The Enquiry Officer, on verification of the application form of the petitioner, found the charge proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25.5.2011, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned the same relate to the offences committed under Sections 325/34. IPC, as would appear from the judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 and under Sections 324/323/504, IPC, as would appear from the judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 2903 . So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned the same relate to the offences committed under Sections 325/34. IPC, as would appear from the judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 and under Sections 324/323/504, IPC, as would appear from the judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 2903 . These judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, as specific allegation has been made against the petitioner under Sections 216/216-A/386. IPC and Section 17 of the CLA Act, which is serious in nature. 6. In the recent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363 , it has been held at paragraphs 12 & 13 as follows: "12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath). In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712). ".....No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 7. It has been held by the Apex Court that the case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude, but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. ".....No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything." 7. It has been held by the Apex Court that the case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude, but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. However, it is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. 8. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in this writ petition. 9. This writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.