Bhagwat Prasad @ Mewalal @ Mewaram vs State of M.P. and Another

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 20.4.2000 (Annexure-P-6) passed by Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department terminating the services of the petitioner and further to quash the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure-P-8) passed by M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No.2711/2000, whereby aforesaid order of removal of petitioner has been confirmed.

Facts of the case in short are that petitioner was appointed as daily wages on 1.7.1986 and was regularized in service on the post of Amin on 17.9.1998 vide Annexure-P-1. On 22.2.2000 the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice (Annexure-P-3) requiring him to explain as to why he submitted false information in Clause 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 of attestation form regarding his involvement in criminal police case. In respect of incident dated 27.6.1991, a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station Damoh at Crime No.85/1991 under Sections 342, 327 and 295/34 of I.P.C. In another matter in Criminal Case No.322/1998, proceeding u/s 116(3) and 151/107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for committing breach of peace was also initiated against him. Vide judgment dated 13.12.1999 (Annexure-P-5) passed by J.M.F.C. Damoh in Criminal Case No.28/1998, petitioner was acquitted of all the charges. Case pertains to preventive action was also dismissed on 20.3.1999 in Lok Adalat on account of expiry of stipulated time period of bond and surety.

According to the petitioner under the perception that aforesaid criminal cases were false and fabricated and further due to lack of understanding, petitioner furnished the information that no criminal case is pending against him. Considering the Police report received in department in response to the attestation form and his aforesaid reply, vide order dated 20.4.2000 (Annexure-P-6), service of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect.

Order of removal of service is challenged in the petition on the grounds of its arbitrariness and illegality. Aforesaid order of removal has been passed without holding a proper departmental enquiry. Such step is disproportionate and harsh.

Relevant extract of contents of attestation form and information furnished and signed by the petitioner reads as below-

Having placed reliance on Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, , it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that removal from service is totally uncalled for and unwarranted and is a harsh step. Further placing reliance on judgment dated 24.6.2004 passed in W.P. No.2836/2003, Laxman Singh Vs. State, by this Court, prayed for his reinstatement. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents supported the impugned orders and opposed the grounds raised in the petition.

To buterrace the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized following observation of Hon''ble the Apex Court made in Kamal Narayan Mishra''s case -

6.2 ----------where an employee (probationer) is required to give his personal data in an attestation form in connection with his appointment (either at the time of or thereafter), if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a hearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. The decision dealt with a probationer and not a holder of a civil post, and nowhere laid down a proposition that a confirmed employee holding a civil post under the State, could be terminated from service for furnishing false information in an attestation form, without giving an opportunity to meet the charges against him.

We also find from an examination of the terms of the attestation form that termination without notice or inquiry was contemplated only in the context of furnishing false information in and around the time of the appointment. Note (1) of the preamble warns that the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment. Similarly the certificate at the end of the attestation form, states that "I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for deployment under Government. I agree that if the above information is found false or incomplete in any material respect, the appointing authority will have a right to terminate my services without giving notice or showing cause. " Be that as it may.

The termination of appellant without an inquiry or hearing was illegal and invalid. In the normal course, we would have set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly difference approach to do complete justice between the parties. We have already pointed out that there are clear indications that the appellant was bona fide under the impression that he was required to give the particulars sought in column (12) of the form with reference to the date of his appointment. Further, the entire matter relates to an attestation form given in 1994 and appellant has already been out of service for more than seven years on account of the illegal termination from service without inquiry on 7.3.2002. We are therefore of the view that interests of justice would be served if the appellant is reinstated with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, dispensing with any further disciplinary action. The appellant will not entitled to any salary for the period 7.3.2002.

Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized following observation made by this Court in W.P. No.7836/2003--

..............True it is, the petitioner should have, in all propriety, stated that he was proceeded against in a criminal case and eventually acquitted before he filed an application for the post of daily wager. This may be a non-mention of a fact but it would not tantamount to a plain suppression of material information to keep the authorities in total darkness and blindfold them to the antecedents of the petitioner to gain an advantage. Indubitably, the petitioner did not want to gain any advantage by such non-mention. Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned counsel fairly acceded that had the said factum been mentioned, the Department could not have proceeded against him as there had been no stigma attached even before the point of entry in service.

In present case, on the date of filing the attestation form, i.e. on 27.10.1998 criminal case was pending in the trial Court against the petitioner and trial was regularly proceeding in the court of J.M.F.C. Damoh. Aforesaid form was forwarded to Police on 8.2.1999 for its verification. Vide judgment dated 23.12.1999, trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges. At the time regularization, this attestation form was required to be filled by the petitioner. It remains no longer disputed that the petitioner is the author of the attestation form. Explanation of the petitioner that on the pretext that aforesaid cases were false and fabricated, he responded the information regarding criminal case in these columns in negative.

It is a clear case where false information has been furnished in attestation form by the petitioner. Explanation given by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice Annexure-P-5 does not inspire the confidence. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that such entries were made with clear understanding and knowledge.

Conduct of petitioner in respect of furnishing information regarding his involvement in criminal case was suspicious and doubtful. In response to the attestation form vide letter dt. 16.9.1999, fact of pendency of criminal cases was informed by the Police to the department. It is pertinent to note that in criminal case the name of petitioner was mentioned as Mewalal son of Ishwar Das. After acquittal of the charges, petitioner informed the department that his name is Mewalal and Bhawat Prasad both. Police also submitted a report to that effect that Mewalal and Bhawat Prasad is one and the same person. Petitioner never had a clear intention and fair conduct to disclose his involvement in that criminal case. Above such conduct is also unbecoming of a public servant.

Facts of Kamal Narayan Mishra''s case are different and distinguishable. Similarly, the ratio of Laxmi Narayan Bajpayee''s case is also not helping the petitioner in present case on account of distinguishable facts and circumstances of the case.

Order Annexure-P- 6 has been passed by the authorities after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Tribunal has also considered and appreciated the facts in right perspective. It being a clear case of concealment of facts and furnishing false information in column 12 of the attestation form in respect of involvement of petitioner in criminal case. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled for any relief whatsoever.

In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.