AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner's service has been terminated on the grounds of suppression of information regarding pendency of a criminal case against him while
submitting his attestation form on 22.05.2015 for employment as a Service Hand under the Raw Materials Division of Gua Ore Mines under Steel
Authority of India Limited. The employer during verification of his character came to know through the communication bearing letter no. 1561 dated
09.08.2017 issued by Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa that he was an accused in Gua P.S. Case No.15/14 lodged on 31.03.2014 under Sections
272/273 of the I.P.C and under Section 47 A of the Excise Act. The order of termination dated 12.07.2018 followed thereafter since it was in clear
suppression of the material fact required to be stated as per Clause-15 of the offer of appointment dated 23.04.2015. Clause-17 thereof also stipulated
that the appointment would be subject to verification of character and antecedents by the police authority and in the event of such verification report
being in any way against or adverse his character, his services would be terminated automatically without assigning any reason whatsoever. Relying
upon Clauses-21, 22(b)(iv) read with Clause-24 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Office Memorandum and Clauses 15 and 17 of the offer of
appointment, his services were terminated without resorting to any notice or show-cause.
Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of Original Application no. 051/00815/18 vide order dated 21.08.2019 rendered by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi has approached this Court. The fact of pendency of the criminal case was within the knowledge of
the petitioner is not disputed since the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 16.08.2014 under Sections 272/273 of the I.P.C and Section 47 A of the
Excise Act and the charges were framed on 24.02.2015 before filling up of the attestation form on 22.05.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to improve the case of the petitioner on the plea that if it was a misconduct to suppress information it
should have been inquired in a Departmental proceeding as per the service rules which has not been done. Apart from that, it has been argued that
absence of notice or show-cause amounts to violation of principles of natural justice since adverse consequences flow out of the impugned decision.
Additionally, relying upon the case of Commr. of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 2 JLJR 224 (SC )and also on the case of
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, it has been argued that the nature of allegations were trivial and it ended up
in an honourable acquittal in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.08.2017 at page 51, which fact has also not been taken note of by the
employer. He has been acquitted of the charges before the order of termination i.e. on 12.07.2018. By then, petitioner had remained in service for
three years. Therefore, the impugned decision requires interference by this Court as due process has not been followed.
Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the submissions. He submits that there was conscious suppression of fact regarding
pendency of criminal case despite knowledge of its pendency since petitioner was charge-sheeted on 16.08.2014 and charges were framed obviously
in his presence on 24.02.2015, as evident from the trial court judgment. The charges cannot be said to be of a trivial nature. Suppression of a vital fact
regarding pendency of a criminal case is in teeth of Clause 15 of offer of appointment and relevant provisions of the Office memorandum coupled
with a warning on the attestation form. The petitioner was still a trainee as it would appear from the order of termination. As such, he was not
confirmed in service and no duty was enjoined upon the employer to hold a departmental inquiry before termination as stipulated under para-38.9 in
Avtar Singh's case (supra). Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of
Uttaranchal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363, where it has been held that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized
system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Relying upon the case of United India Insurance Company Limited versus
Rajendra Singh & Ors.; AIR 2000 SC 1165 it was further observed that fraud and justice never dwell together. It is further argued that the petitioner
himself never brought it to the notice of the employer that he was facing a criminal proceeding rather during police verification the authorities came to
know about the pendency of the Gua P.S. Case No.15/14. As such, case of the petitioner suffers on the principle of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi
despite a warning at the top of the attestation form (Annexure-11) that any suppression of factual information would be a disqualification and render
the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. Clause-17 of offer of appointment also stipulated that dismissal from service on account of
suppression of material fact at the time of employment would not require any notice or show-cause to be issued. It is submitted that entry in service by
the petitioner was vitiated by fraud which did not require any further proof and as such, insistence upon a show-cause notice on the part of the
petitioner would be an empty formality. Based on these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the findings recorded by the
learned Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant material facts borne from the records and
also perused the impugned order. We have also gone through the decisions cited by the parties. As noted above, it is not a matter of dispute that
petitioner resorted to suppression of material information relating to pendency of a criminal case against him at the time of filling up of the attestation
form on issuance of appointment letter. Clause-17 of the offer of appointment clearly stipulated the consequences arising out of suppression of facts
of such serious nature. During the period of his service also, petitioner did not inform the employer about the pendency of the criminal case. It was
only during the police verification that the employer came to know about the criminal case under Sections 272/273 of the I.P.C and Section 47 of the
Excise Act vide letter dated 19.08.2017 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa. On that date there was no order of acquittal in favour of the
petitioner by the learned trial court as the date of judgment of acquittal is 10.08.2017. The case of the petitioner even on account of his acquittal does
not relieve him of the guilt of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi at the time of entry in service. The principle behind verification of antecedents is that it
is necessary to find out the fitness of the incumbent and whether he is of good moral character. Even if disclosure is made truthfully at the time of
filling up of the verification form by the incumbent, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and
background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence,
whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In
case the employer comes to a conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent
will be appointed or continued in service.
The present case is not one where the petitioner has truthfully made the disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case against him while filling up of
the attestation form despite knowledge. Had the petitioner made such a disclosure, it could have been open to the employer not to appoint him and as
such, non-disclosure or submitting false information assumes significance and that by itself becomes a ground for the employer to cancel candidature
or to terminate services. As has been held in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings.
Misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or
recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, as was
observed in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others; AIR 2004 SC 409 6relied upon in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) also.
As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or
misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. The Apex court
has in the Devendra Kumar (supra) placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in the case of Union of India and others vs. M. Bhaskaran; AIR 1996
SC 686 and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi; (1990) 3 SCC 655
and noted the observation made therein: “If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by
a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.â€
Having regard to the facts of the case noted hereinabove, such suppression of fact would amount to a fraud and a case of moral turpitude also as
held by the Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra). Petitioner was still a Trainee and not confirmed in service, therefore there was no
necessity of conducting any disciplinary enquiry. As such, we do not find any reason to take a different view from what has been held by the learned
Tribunal. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.