Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2998 (ALL)

RAHUL TIWARI v. UNION BANK OF INDIA

2017-12-20

AJAY BHANOT, TARUN AGARWALA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—The special appeal is from the judgement and order dated 12.9.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.8.2017 dismissing him from service. 2. An advertisement was published in various daily news papers on behalf of the Union Bank of India inviting applications for appointment to the post of House-Keeper-cum-Peon in the Bank. The advertisement not only provided conditions of eligibility but also terms of disqualification. The eligibility conditions required the candidates to have passed class-10th examination or an equivalent examination. However, the advertisement clearly stipulated that the candidates should not have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent thereto. The petitioner applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement and participated in the selection proceedings. 3. The petitioner came to be appointed as the House-keeper-cum-Peon. Upon his recruitment, the petitioner submitted testimonials and declarations in support of his candidature as required by the authorities. The declaration given by the petitioner to the bank authorities dated 14.8.2013 clearly stated that the petitioner had passed the Class-10th examination in the year 2007 and further also explicitly asserted that he did not pass the 10+2 examination. The declaration was found to be false. 4. The departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner for making a false declaration, while knowing it to be false. In the disciplinary proceedings, a finding of guilt was returned and the charge stood established. The disciplinary authority went on to pass the impugned order of dismissal with the qualification that the same would not debar him from future employment. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner had made a false declaration or at least made a misleading statement, in order to secure his employment. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the Division Bench’s judgement of this Court in the case of Ritesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and another, 2015 (147) FLR 176. Further, the learned Single Judge also found that in the disciplinary proceedings, the charge of a false declaration stood established. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the Division Bench’s judgement of this Court in the case of Ritesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and another, 2015 (147) FLR 176. Further, the learned Single Judge also found that in the disciplinary proceedings, the charge of a false declaration stood established. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. This Court had an occasion to examine the same issue in the case of Shivangi Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2017 (122) ALR 579 and in the case of Abhishek Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, 2016(6) ADJ 658 , wherein the charge of concealing the true educational qualifications in the declaration submitted at the time of appointment was found to be an act of moral turpitude grave enough to warrant dismissal from service. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a qualification higher than the prescribed minimum qualification cannot be the cause for dismissal from service. He relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000 Law Suit (SC) 316. He also relied upon a full bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Manjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) ESC 115 (P&H)(FB). No exception can be taken to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a higher qualification cannot entail the dismissal from service. However, the issue in the instant case is entirely different. The issue in the case at hand is of deliberate concealment or making a false representation in the declaration submitted at the time of entering of employment as part of the testimonials in support of the appellant-claimant for appointment. Such declaration has been found to be false and duly established in the departmental enquiry. The judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge is correct in facts and impeccable in law. No interference in the judgement of the learned Single Judge is warranted. 8. The special appeal is dismissed.