Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 212 (TRI)

Suraj Rupini v. State of Tripura

2014-06-06

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition falls within a short campus. The petitioner while filling up the attestation form after receipt of his offer of appointment dated 16.09.2009, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wrote 'No' against the column No. 13(i) containing the queries, whether any criminal case pending against him in any Court of Law at that time. But, when the matter was verified, it was found that, at the relevant point of time the petitioner was facing a criminal trial in connection with Jirania P.S. Case No. 41/2009, registered under Sections 148/149/323/427/379 of the IPC. Accordingly, his offer was recalled. Being aggrieved by that action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by the judgment and order dated 18.01.2012, delivered in G.R. No. 686/2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, the petitioner has been acquitted from the charge without any stigma. He has further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner falls within youthful indiscretion and, as such, due latitude be shown by the respondents on condoning the indiscretion. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the apex court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , where the apex court has held that "Youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned". 4. From the other side, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the apex court has held that pendency of a criminal prosecution may not be a bar for employment, but suppression of that fact in the attestation form belies the integrity of the petitioner and, as such, his retention in the service may not be suitable. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the apex court in Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in : (1996) 11 SCC 605 . The apex court has observed in Sushil Kumar that recalling of the appointment for the material suppression in the attestation form was justified. Mr. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has relied on another decision of the apex court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in : (1996) 11 SCC 605 . The apex court has observed in Sushil Kumar that recalling of the appointment for the material suppression in the attestation form was justified. Mr. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has relied on another decision of the apex court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, reported : (2008) 11 SCC 314 , where, almost in an identical situation, the apex court has denied to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which had ratified the action of the State, terminating service on the premises of suppression of the material information in the attestation form. Even though the petitioner has been discharged from the criminal case, his plea of taking back in the service was not acceded to. Mr. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has further submitted that similarly the law is restated by the apex court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh etc., reported in : (2013) 7 SCC 685 . 5. This Court, after considering the nature of the indiscretion for which the petitioner was framed in a criminal case, is of the view that this court may not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. But the respondents are within their discretion to reconsider whether the petitioner should be retained in the service or not, in view of his exoneration from the charge without any stigma. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is interfered with and set aside. The respondents, particularly the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles, Kachucherra, Dhalai is directed to reconsider the matter afresh having regard to the fact of petitioner's acquittal from the criminal prosecution. The decision of the apex court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in : (2011) 4 SCC 644 may also be taken into consideration while passing the appropriate order. The petitioner, for that purpose shall place a copy of this order as well as the decision of the apex court in Sandeep Kumar before the respondent No. 4, the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Tripura State Rifles, Kachucherra, Dhalai within a period of 15(fifteen) days from today. The respondents thereafter shall pass the necessary order as expeditiously as possible, but in any rate not later than 30.08.2014. 7. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.