Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalla Ram Ram vs State & Ors on 23 February, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7913 / 2016
Kalla Ram S/o Shri Khema Ram, aged about 35 years, R/o Baytu
Panji, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Secondary Education), Department of Secondary
Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
4. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, District
Barmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Choudhary for Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 23/02/2018
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:
"I. The record of the case may kindly be called for; II. The order dated 26.06.2016 (Annexure 07) passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
III. The respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to join on the post of PTI Grade-III in pursuance of the order of appointment dated 05.06.2016 (Annexure-3) in his favour by respondent No.4.
IV. The respondents may further be directed to release all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner. V. Any other appropriate order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case warrants be issued (2 of 5) [CW-7913/2016] and;
VI. Cost of the application be allowed in favour of the petitioner."
2. The petitioner has participated in the selection process for the post of PTI Grade-III in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013. The petitioner was given appointment on 05.06.2016. The respondents on account of a criminal case against the petitioner passed the order of termination of service of the petitioner on 23.06.2016.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if his representation is considered and decided by the respondents in terms of the precedent law rendered by three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21.07.2016), in which following directions were given:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special (3 of 5) [CW-7913/2016] circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider (4 of 5) [CW-7913/2016] antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner (5 of 5) [CW-7913/2016] while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such case action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent assures this Court that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered strictly in accordance with law while taking into consideration the aforementioned precedent law.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned precedent law. The impugned order dated 23.06.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The interim order granted by this Court on 14.07.2016 shall continue till the respondents take the final decision in accordance with this order.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. zeeshan/