Chandra Shekhar Prasad vs Union Of India Through The Secretary And Ors

Heard Shri M.P. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Kumar Priya Ranjan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 851 contends that the impugned order cannot be supplemented by any reasons contained in the counter affidavit filed before this Court. His foundational argument therefore is that non-supply of reasons in the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner and cancelling his candidature cannot be on the strength of a reason which has been brought forth through the counter affidavit.

The bare minimum facts which are evident from the pleadings on record appears to be that in the Attestation Form, with regard to the employment of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Bureau, did not contain full particulars of his previous employment in the Intelligence Bureau Department itself where he had been earlier employed where his services had been terminated.

A copy of the Attestation Form has been placed on record through the written statement before the Central Administrative Tribunal and on a perusal of Column No. 11(A) and 11(B) we find that the requirement of disclosure is of any employment either held by the candidate or any employment which may have been held by the candidate any time under the Central or State Government or Semi-Government or Quasi Government body or an autonomous body or a Public Undertaking or a Private Firm or Institution.

Shri Dixit contends that Clause 11(A) only creates an obligation to disclose about the employment that is held currently at the time of the submission of Attestation Form. In essence, his argument is that there was no obligation on the petitioner to have disclosed any previous employment and accordingly it is urged that this cannot be a ground for cancellation of his candidature and subsequent appointment.

He therefore has advanced a two fold submission, one of the existence of reasons as indicated above and the second about the absence of any obligation on the part of the petitioner to have disclosed the facts about his previous employment in the Intelligence Bureau itself.

Clause  11(A)  and  11(B)  are  extracted hereinunder:-

"11 11;कद्ध क्या आप केन्द्र अथवा राज्य सरकार अथवा अर्ध सरकारी अथवा अर्ध सरकारी निकाय, अथवा स्वायत्त निकाय अथवा लोक उपक्रम अथवा निजी फर्म अथवा संस्थान में सेवारत हैं अथवा सेवारत रह चुके हैं? यदि हो तो सेवा की तारीखों सहित पूर्ण अद्यतन ब्योरा दें।

(A) Are you holding or have any time held an appointment under the Central or State Government or a Semi-Government or a Quasi-Government body, or an autonomous body, or a Public Undertaking or a Private Firm or Institution? If so, give full particulars with dates of employment, upto date.

PERIOD   अवधि

पदनाम,वेतन तथा सेवा की प्रवृत्ति

नियोक्ता का पूरा नाम व पता

पूर्व सेवा छोड़ने के कारण

से              तक

FROM    TO

Designation, emoluments & nature of employment

Full name & address of employer

Reasons for leaving previous service

खद्ध क्या पिछली सेवा भारत सरकार, राज्य सरकार/किसी उपक्रम के स्वामित्वाधीन अथवा भारत सरकार अथवा राज्य सरकार, स्वायत्त निकाय, विश्वविद्य ालय/ स्थानीय निकाय के नियन्त्रणाधीन थी।

If you had left service on giving a month's notice under Rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, or any similar corresponding Rules were any disciplinary proceedings framed against you or had you been called upon to explain your conduct in any matter at the time you gave notice or termination of service, or at a subsequent date, before your services actually terminated?"

A perusal of Clause 11(A) leaves no room for doubt that the requirement of disclosure obligates the candidate to furnish the entire information of any employment being held by him or having held any time an appointment of the nature described therein. The argument therefore of Shri Dixit that the petitioner was not under an obligation to disclose such information does not stand to reason and is not in conformity with Clause 11(A). Non-disclosure of such a fact, in our opinion, has a direct bearing on his employment, inasmuch as, admittedly the petitioner had been employed in the Intelligence Bureau itself and his services were terminated vide order dated 14th March, 2013. This fact of termination of employment in the same department, which is a highly sensitive department, therefore, cannot be said to be an information which was not required to be disclosed. This contention to be not an obligation on the part of the petitioner does not stand to reason, and consequently it is established that the petitioner voluntarily or deliberately chose not to disclose this information in spite of a clear recital to that effect contained in Clause 11(A) of the Attestation Form. This itself was therefore sufficient for the cancellation of his appointment and future termination.

Learned counsel then contends that this does not appear to be the reason, inasmuch as, the impugned memorandum refers to the Government of India instructions dated 7th July, 1947 which relates to dismissal from service.

We are not impressed by this argument, inasmuch as, on the facts in the present case it is established that the petitioner's failure to disclose the relevant information necessarily invited the cancellation of his candidature in which we find no infirmity resulting in termination.

Accordingly, no case is made out for the exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.