Churendra Kumar Dhruw vs State of C.G. and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.11.2009 {sic 29.07.2010} (Annexure - P/2), by which, the petitioner has been terminated from service.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, participated in the selection process and after completing the due selection process by order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Constable (General Duty). Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the service. However, all of a sudden by order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has been terminated from the service on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by fine of Rs. 100/- in crime No. 117/2009 at Police Station Sihawa, Dhamtari, under the provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act and the said fact has not been mentioned by the petitioner at the time of filling the attestation form. Thereafter, the petitioner made several requests including the representations before the respondent authorities and requested for condoning the mistake, which yielded no result.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has been convicted under the provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act; whereas, in column 12 (I) of the attestation form, the petitioner mentioned that "No" and he has not disclosed the facts properly. Thus, the petitioner has concealed the relevant facts and, as such, the petitioner was liable to be removed from service on account of concealment of the relevant facts, as required in the attestation form.

It is trite law that the object of requiring information in various columns of the attestation form by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service (See: Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another Vs. Dhaval Singh, , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, and Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. and Others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu,

The Supreme Court in Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, , observed that "It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case u/s 325/34, IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified." The Supreme Court further observed that "at any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."

Indisputably, the petitioner indulged into gambling on the day of Diwali festival, as pleaded by the petitioner. Normally, on Diwali festival, most of the people indulge into gambling, as there is a belief that if you succeed in the gambling on the day of Diwali. in future there would not be a dearth of money. However, it does not mean that indulging into gambling is not an offence. It should be avoided even on the day of any festival including Diwali.

There is no other incident, as reported by the Police that the petitioner was a regular gambler except the one, wherein the fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed on him by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Nagri.

The aforesaid offence does not have such a strong bearing on the character of the petitioner leading to disqualify him for ever for the purpose of Government service in his life. In any event, it was not a serious offence, which leads to removal of the petitioner from the service.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) is quashed. As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.