Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Manish Maan vs Aiims on 10 November, 2023
1 OA No.203/1109/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
Circuit Sitting : Bilaspur
Original Application No.203/1109/2022
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 10th day of November, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Manish Maan, S/o Shri Kailash Chand Maan, Aged - 25 years, presently
working as Nursing Officer, at AIIMS, Raipur, (C.G.) -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani)
Versus
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences through its President, AIIMS,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001.
2. The Director & Chief Executive Officer, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences [AIIMS], Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001.
3. The Administrative Officer, [Hospital], All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001 -Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri B.P. Rao)
(Date of reserving order 14.09.2023)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicant is challenging the notice of termination of service dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure A-1) issued under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
Page 1 of 10 2 OA No.203/1109/2022
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was selected on the post of Nursing Officer (Group B) vide order dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure A-
2). In pursuance to his selection, the applicant joined the services on 20.03.2020. As per the offer of appointment dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure A-3), the appointment of the applicant was under probation for a period of two years. On 04.08.2022 (Annexure A-4), the applicant was served with a memo regarding suppression of material information with regard to the pending criminal case and he was directed to submit his explanation within a period of 07 days. The applicant, in reply to the memo, stated that the information so concealed was attributed due to human error and he had no intention to conceal the same. However, without considering his reply, the applicant was served with the impugned notice of termination.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was under
probation period for two years and as per the appointment order, his probation was to end on 19.03.2022. Since no confirmation order was issued in favour of the applicant, he deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. March, 2022. He also stated that the persons appointed along with the applicant as per appointment letter dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure A-3) were confirmed in 2023 w.e.f. March, 2022. He further argued that the impugned notice of termination served under Page 2 of 10 3 OA No.203/1109/2022 Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is not sustainable as the same was served upon the applicant on 15.11.2022, the date on which the status of the applicant was deemed to have been confirmed. He also added that though the applicant inadvertently had not supplied the information regarding pendency of the criminal case, but ultimately now he is acquitted from the offence under Section 5[2], 23, 25 of Pre Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition) of Sex Selection/Determination Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act', 1994 for brevity) and Section 315/511, 420 and 120B of IPC vide order dated 30.06.2023 (Annexure RA-2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Seeker, District Seeker, Rajasthan. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2018 (1) SCC 268 and Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & another, 2022 AIR (SC) 2829.
4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that appointment of the applicant was under the condition that if any of the declarations made or information furnished by him is proved to be false or if he is found to be have willfully suppressed any material information, he will be liable for removal from service. Accepting, aforesaid terms and conditions, the applicant joined the service on 20.03.2020. Subsequently, a complaint was received by the Page 3 of 10 4 OA No.203/1109/2022 AIIMS, Raipur on its officer Twitter handle on 20.12.2021 that in the year 2018, a criminal case under PCPNDT Act, 1994 was lodged against the applicant at Sikar, Rajasthan and the same is pending. But the applicant has suppressed this fact in the Attestation Form and at the relevant column regarding pendency of any criminal case, the applicant has written 'NO'. Therefore, an enquiry was held which found the applicant involved in the criminal case and, accordingly a memorandum dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure A-
4) was served to the applicant. Since the applicant has suppressed the vital information regarding past incidents, the Competent Authority has not accepted the reply of the respondents and decided to terminate his services under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that at the time of issuance of termination order, the services of the applicant were not regularised and, therefore, it was not necessary to conduct regular departmental enquiry as per the Central Civil Services Rules. He placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & others vs. Chetan Jett, Civil Appeal No.3116 of 2022, decided on 11.05.2022.
Page 4 of 10 5 OA No.203/1109/2022
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
7. The very object of requiring information in the Attestation Form and the declaration thereafter by a candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is an admitted position that the applicant has concealed the fact regarding pendency of criminal case registered against him under Section 5[2], 23, 25 PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Section 315/511, 420 and 120B of IPC.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) had considered in detail as to the circumstances under which the stringent action could be taken and to what extent the employer can exercise its discretion. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:
"38.1 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.
38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
Page 5 of 10 6 OA No.203/1109/2022 38.4 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 : -
38.4.1 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.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3 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. 38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6 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. 38.7 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 appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8 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.Page 6 of 10 7 OA No.203/1109/2022
38.9 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.
38.10 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 while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
9. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. But at the same time, a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
10. We may also consider the consequences of the suppression of fact by the applicant and as to whether a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted by Page 7 of 10 8 OA No.203/1109/2022 the authorities before passing any order of termination as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the applicant accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions clearly stated and mentioned in the Attestation Form with full knowledge of the consequences. The conditions mentioned in the Attestation Form which has already been quoted in the preceding paragraph clearly stipulates and provides that if there is any suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form filled up by the applicant which comes to the notice of the authorities at any time during the service of the person, his service would be liable to be terminated. Note No. The facts of the present case also indicate that the details about the criminal case were suppressed by the appellant in the Attestation Form and in fact the factual aspect is undisputed and undenied. It is not the case of the applicant before this Court that no criminal case was ever registered against him, in fact the averments are to the contrary as it is asserted that the suppression was a mistake. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the applicant was forewarned and was well aware that his services would be terminated in case of suppression of facts in spite of which he suppressed information regarding his criminal antecedents. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was deemed to have been Page 8 of 10 9 OA No.203/1109/2022 confirmed before issuance of termination notice is also misplaced as there were no orders regarding his confirmation when the notice of termination was served upon the applicant.
11. The charges against the applicant in the criminal case was that while working as a Nursing Officer in a Hospital situated in Rajasthan, he was caught red handed by receiving money from a pregnant lady in the name of pre natal diagnostic for sex determination of unborn child and for causing illegal abortion etc and Rs.8000/- was recovered from the applicant. He was arrested and charged u/s 5(2), 23 & 25 of Pre Conception and PCPNDT Act 1994 with Section 120(B) of IPC. The charges against the applicant were certainly grave in nature which had led to his termination especially when the applicant has himself suppressed about the same. Although the applicant has subsequently been acquitted by the Court of Law but the fact still remains the same that he had procured the employment by concealing the material information. Even the law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, leaves sole discretion with the authority to consider and decide the continuance of an employee looking to the nature of offence. Therefore, we find that the action of the respondents to terminate the services Page 9 of 10 10 OA No.203/1109/2022 of the applicant, as per the applicable rules, is justified and does not call for any interference.
12. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 10 of 10