Abhishek Singh vs State of C.G. and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 19-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 26-3-2009 (Annexure - P/2) has been rejected. The Petitioner also challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 26-3-2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was removed from the post of Constable.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the Petitioner, for adjudication of the case, are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondent authorities, the Petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD). On being selected in the selection process, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable by order dated 1-9-2008 (Annexure - P/3).

According to the Petitioner, prior to his appointment an offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-II and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him, but due to bona fide mistake the said fact has not been mentioned in the application form. However, on 30-9-2008 i.e. after appointment of the Petitioner, the said fact has been brought before the Respondent authorities along with affidavit. Thereafter, the Petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid offence by the judgment dated 23-10-2008 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Sessions Trial No. 77/08 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Hanuman Singh and Ors). In spite of the said facts, the Superintendent of Police. Surguja. by order dated 26-3-2009 removed the Petitioner from the service on the ground that Petitioner has suppressed the material fact about registration of criminal charges against him. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which was rejected by order dated 19-11-2009. Thus, this petition.

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 six months 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.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits 1hat the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information with regard to registration of criminal charges against the Petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-II and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 prior to his appointment.

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 the application form. The Petitioner had submitted the information only after his appointment.

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, the criminal charges were framed against the Petitioner before making the application for selection. The Petitioner deliberately concealed the facts. Thus, it is a case of suprresio veri and suggestio 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.

The Supreme Court in Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J and K Bank Ltd. and Others, , observed as under:

The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel 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 vaccum 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).

The ratio laid down in Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J and K Bank Ltd. and Others, was referred with approval in P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 776.

The Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, , observed as under:

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....

This Court in Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. State of C. G. and Ors. 2007 (1) CGU 440 observed that "the Petitioner had obtained the appointment by suppressing information and submitting false information. Thus, the services of the Petitioner was rightly terminated being in violation of the condition No. 4 of the appointment order."

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.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order asto costs.