Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Prasada Rao vs Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), ... on 29 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(4)ALD770, 2003(5)ALT833, (2003)IIILLJ966AP
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki, E. Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT Bilal Nazki, J.
1. The petitioner filed an OA challenging order No. RD/LC/75-99, dated 27-4-2000 issued by the Post Master General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as EDMC/DA from 30th June, 1998. A notice was issued to him on 23-3-1999 asking him why his services be not terminated in view of the report of the police regarding verification of his antecedents. Subsequently another notice was given to him on 5-6-1999 asking him to submit his explanation within three days. These notices were challenged by the petitioner in OA No. 1339/99. This OA was dismissed by the Tribunal with the following order:
"In view of the above we do not find any merits in this OA. The OA has to be dismissed. However, the applicant has got a further grievance redressal machinery available to him by filing an appeal to the higher authorities i.e., either to the Director of Postal Services or to the Post Master General of that Division. He may take such action if he feels that he is not guilty of the charges."
Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against the notices issued to him and requested the appellate authority to drop further proceedings. The 4th respondent considered the appeal and rejected the appeal holding that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case when he applied for the post and that he had been arrested by police and was remanded to judicial custody. The order of respondent No. 4 was challenged on the ground mat pendnecy of a criminal case against a candidate could not be a ground for termination. He also submitted that subsequently he had been acquitted by the Court and respondents should have considered this aspect of the matter and reinstated him.
2. Now the only question is, whether the petitioner had suppressed the material information when he applied for the job and whether he was duty bound to disclose that he was involved in a criminal case when he applied for the job and if he was bound to disclose what would be the consequences if he had not disclosed this information.
3. Before going to the judgments which have been placed before us, a look at the form which the petitioner had filled up for seeking the job would be necessary. This form is termed as 'Attestation form'. This form is partly in the questionnaire form and under Clause 12(1) amongst other things following questions are framed:
12.(1)(a) Have you ever been arrested ?
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted?
(c) Have you ever been kept under detention?
(d) Have you ever been bound down?
(e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of law?
(f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law for any offence?
(g).....
(h).....
(i) If any case pending against you in any Court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form.
In reply to all these questions the petitioner submitted 'NO', it is usual that when appointments are made the department concerned send the relevant material to the concerned police for verification of the antecedents of the appointees. It is during this verification that the respondents were informed that the petitioner had been arrested and a criminal case was pending against him. Admittedly, the petitioner had suppressed material information. Not only suppressed the material information but had given wrong information. In our view it is not important whether the petitioner got acquitted or did not get acquitted, in our view it is very important to know that the petitioner was not a truthful person. Admittedly, he was facing a criminal trial in Crime No. 21/97 under Section 8(B) APPS Act, 1997, He was kept in judicial custody from 17-4-1997 to 23-4-1997 and subsequently released on bail. However, the learned Couttsel for the petitioner submits that this information was not given because the petitioner apprehended that if he disclosed such information he may not be considered for the job. That is precisely the point. When a person suspects that some information about him which is correct may disentitle him form getting a job such information must never be suppressed. In our view, if the person starts his career with a lie it would be safe not to have such a person in the employment. He also contended that since he had been acquitted therefore the basis on which the impugned order has been passed has gone. In our view, this argument can also not be accepted. The basis for passing the impugned order is not pendency or acquittal or conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case, the basis is that the petitioner lied while submitting the attestation form. It may also be noted that while submitting the attestation form in the last para he also stated, "I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under Government,"
4. Now coming to the judgments to which a reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one of the judgments is an unreported judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 15234/ 88 titled Matadeen Garg v. State of Rajasthan, This case was decided by a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court on 12-7-1991. This was a case of a candidate who had been selected for Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. Consequently he was recommended for being appointed to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial service. This recommendation was withdrawn on the ground that he had concealed certain particulars which ought to have been disclosed in his application. The candidate challenged the withdrawal of his recommendation before the High Court unsuccessfully. Thereafter he approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that, in the application form he was required to state whether he had at anytime figured as accused or complainant. The appellant had figured as an accused in a criminal case but had not disclosed it in the form. Since this information was not given the High Court withdrew its recommendation. The Supreme Court found, on facts, that the appellant before it had been an accused in a case under Essential Commodities Act for contravention of provisions of Rajasthan Food Grains (Prevention of Hoarding) Order, 1973. His premises had been used for storing food grains by another person who was also an accused. The appellant was acquitted in the case in the year 1979 whereas he applied for the post in the year 1986. The Supreme Court considered it to be a stale matter. The Supreme Court, on facts, also found that while the appellant was being interviewed by the committee of Judges for appointment he had produced a copy of the judgment in the criminal case in which he was acquitted. This committee was consisting of four Judges of the High Court. The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the petition on the ground that the matter was stale and it was not perhaps necessary to disclose such information. The Selection Committee also knew about it. Therefore, in our view this judgment cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present case where the petitioner was facing serious charges and the criminal case was pending at the time when the petitioner submitted his form.
5. The second judgment on which reliance has been placed is the judgment of Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, , but we do not think that this judgment is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of Supreme Court in Neera Maihur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India., . This judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. This was also a case where the services had been terminated on furnishing wrong information. The petitioner before the Supreme Court was a female candidate who was married. She applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. She was successful in written test and also in interview. She was asked to file a declaration form. In the declaration form she had to answer many questions. One of the questions was "Have the menstrual periods always been regular and painless, and are they so now?" she replied this question as 'yes'. On examination by Doctor after her selection it was found that she was pregnant. Therefore, the authorities held that the information given by her with regard to menstrual period was incorrect. Therefore they removed her from service. The Supreme Court found that the particulars to be furnished in columns (iii) to (viii) in the declaration, including the column referred to above, was embarrassing and humiliating. It was against the modesty and self-respect of any lady to disclose such information. The Supreme Court found that the employers were not expected to ask questions relating to menstrual period of lady candidates. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, asked the Corporation to delete such questions from the declarations. Therefore, reliance placed on this judgment is misplaced.
6. Now the latest judgment is of 2003 in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (2) Supreme 219. The candidate in this case was selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher. An appointment order dated 16-12-1997 was issued to him. On getting the appointment order he was required to fill in an attestation form. A case was pending against him in a Court of law but in answer to the question under column 12(1) he said 'No'. On the ground of suppression of this information his services were terminated. Therefore this case in all respects is similar to the case before us. When he was terminated, the petitioner approached the Tribunal stating therein that he had taken his education in Hindi medium school and was not well conversant with English, as such he had failed to understand the meaning of word 'prosecution' or 'conviction'. The Tribunal dismissed the OA. The matter was taken to the High Court. The High Court while allowing the writ petition observed:
"Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the correctness and validity of the same. The Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties, allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and held that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service and entitled to consequential benefits. In allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed thus:
"Non-mention of pending criminal case in column 12(1) of the attestation form can be for the reasons stated by the petitioner, more so when the medium of instructions in this State is primarily Hindi. That apart, the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved, has been withdrawn by the State Government. That means, the case was not serious and involvement of agitators in it was found for justification, otherwise the case against them would not have been withdrawn. That apart, it did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying the petitioner from seeking the employment."
Then in para 12 the Supreme Court observed;
"The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestion form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not." The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature......."
In the case before the Supreme Court also the candidate had finally been acquitted.
7. For the reasons given above, we do not find merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.