Kerala High Court
Jeason K.L. Aged 28 Years vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2015
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 65 of 2016 (Z)
----------------------------
(O.A.320/2014 OF THE CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
JEASON K.L. AGED 28 YEARS
KALLELY HOUSE, KANJIRAPPILLY P.O
CHALAKKUDY TRISSUR 680 721
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN
KUM.R.ANJALI
SMT.SHALINI GOPINATHAN NAIR
SMT.J.DEEPTHI ROSE
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
RERPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI 110 001
2. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF,
HEAD QUARTERS, GOA NAVAL AREA, VASCO-DA-GAMA
GOA 403802
3. THE COMMANDING OFFICER
INS HANSA, DABOLIM, HEAD QUARTERS
GOA NAVAL AREA, VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA 403 802
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, CGC
R BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 65 of 2016 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO 320/2014
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE CAT IN O.A NO 320/2014
DATED 18-09-2015
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 39/269/1/71 DATED 26-11-2015
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K. SURENDRA MOHAN & P.V.ASHA, JJ.
-------------------------------
O.P(CAT) NO.65 OF 2016
----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th February, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.9.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) in O.A.320/2014. The petitioner had approached the CAT challenging his termination from service by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a Civilian Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade) on 1.7.2013 on being selected after a written examination and interview. After he was provisionally selected, he was appointed on regular basis on the above date. Thereafter he was on probation for two years from the date of his joining service. While so, on 14.12.2013 by Annexure A1 dated 12.12.2013 he was terminated from service. The said order does not state any reason except that OP(CAT)65/2016 2 the termination was in exercise of the power under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965. Since the petitioner was not aware of the reason for his termination he tried to ascertain the reason and later came to know that he had been terminated for the reason that he had not disclosed in his attestation form the fact that he had been involved in crime No: 1852/2011 of Chalakudy Police Station under Section 118(e) of Kerala Police Act and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In CC1562/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy he had been imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- on 28.11.2011. However, when he submitted his attestation form on 18.6.2013, he stated that he had not been convicted by a court of law. According to the petitioner, his conviction as stated above was not for any offence involving moral turpitude. The same was only for a traffic offence in which the petitioner had pleaded guilty. Therefore he had not considered it necessary to disclose the said fact while filling up his attestation form, the same being OP(CAT)65/2016 3 only a petty offence. For the above reason, it is contended that his termination from service on the basis of the said crime was unjustified and was liable to be interfered with and set aside by the CAT.
2. The case of the petitioner was contested by the respondents. According to the respondents the petitioner had been appointed only on provisional basis subject to the verification of his character and antecedents through the Police authorities. It was a specific condition of his appointment that, if on verification it was found that wrong information had been furnished by the individual, he was liable to be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. Accordingly the attestation form submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate for getting the verification report. Thereupon it was reported that the petitioner was involved in a crime and he was convicted as stated above. Therefore, in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, he was terminated for having submitted false OP(CAT)65/2016 4 information for the purpose of securing appointment. It was also stated that the respondents were not in a position to retain an employee with criminal antecedents. The termination was for the reason that relevant information had been suppressed.
3. The CAT considered the respective contentions of the parties, referred to the decisions on the point and held that, non-disclosure of conviction of the petitioner in his attestation form was fatal and was sufficient justification for the termination of his probation. Accordingly the O.A has been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
4. According to Adv.S.Radhakrishnan who appears for the petitioner this is a case in which the petitioner has been denied his job and his means of livelihood on the ground that he had been involved in a petty offence. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, the offence alleged against the petitioner were under the Kerala Police Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, in relation to a traffic offence. The petitioner OP(CAT)65/2016 5 had pleaded guilty before the Court and he was punished for the offence. The offence was not one involving any moral turpitude. Since it was only a petty offence the petitioner had not thought it necessary to disclose the same while filling up his attestation form. It was for the said reason that, he had not disclosed the said fact in his attestation form. It is contended that he had been selected after being subjected to all the necessary tests. Therefore there was no justification for his termination. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011)4SCC 644]. In the said case Mr.Sandeep Kumar had been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which fact had not been disclosed by him in the attestation form. While confirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court the Supreme Court held that since the incumbent was aged only 20 years at the time of the incident, the act should be considered as an indiscretion of a youth. It has also been noticed that, in youth OP(CAT)65/2016 6 several persons indulge in such indiscretions which are attributable to their age. Consequently, it was held that the said indiscretion should not and does not automatically disqualify the said person from future employment. Drawing support from the above judgment, it is contended by the learned counsel that in the present case also there is no justification for disqualifying the petitioner and terminating him from service.
5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Dinesh R.Shenoy, the Central Government counsel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been involved in a crime, relating to a traffic offence for which, he had been convicted and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the Magistrate's Court in C.C.1562/2011. As already noticed above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the offence involved is not a serious one, not involving any moral turpitude and therefore there was no justification for the termination of the petitioner from service on the said score. OP(CAT)65/2016 7 However, we notice that the petitioner has not been terminated on the ground that the offence was grave. He has been terminated for his omission to disclose the said fact in his attestation form and for giving false answers to questions that were specifically posed in the proforma that was supplied for the purpose. The attestation form submitted by the petitioner has been produced as Annexure R3 which forms part of Ext.P2. Annexure R3 shows that as per Sl.No:13 (e) and (f) he had been asked the following questions:-
"(e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of Law for any offence?
(f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any office?"
To both the above questions, he has answered in the negative. The attestation form was submitted by him at a time when he was aged 26 years as disclosed in Annexure R3 itself. The petitioner had a duty to give an honest answer to the specific question that was posed. However, he did not do so. Instead OP(CAT)65/2016 8 he has informed the authorities that he had never been fined by a court of law for any office and was never convicted by a court of law for any offence. The authorities have taken the conduct of the petitioner in supplying such false information, as serious and sufficient to disqualify him from continuing as an employee of theirs. The respondents cannot be found fault with for the said decision. It is stated that, the trust that an employer has to repose in his employee has been lost by reason of the above conduct of the employee. It was for the said reason that, he has been terminated.
6. We also notice that the petitioner was only a probationer and that his employer was fully within his rights to terminate his services without assigning any reason. It is stated that it was a specific condition of his appointment that his services would be terminatd if the information supplied by him was found to be false on verification. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned action.
7. The CAT has considered the question elaborately and OP(CAT)65/2016 9 with reference to the decisions of the Apex Court on the point. We find that Ext.P3 has addressed the issues in the proper perspective. As already noticed above the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) where a person who had been involved in a grave offence under the Indian Penal Code was held not to be disqualified by the non-disclosure of the said fact in his attestation form and therefore it was held that he would not be disqualified and that a lenient view was necessary to be taken in the matter. In the said case, he was recruited as a constable in the Police service. However, there are later decisions on the point where the Supreme Court has taken a contrary view also. In the present case, the petitioner was aware of the fact that he had been convicted of the offence on 28.11.2011. His appointment was on 1.7.2013. It cannot be said that there was a long time gap between his conviction and the date of his appointment justifying an omission to disclose the said fact in OP(CAT)65/2016 10 his attestation form which was submitted on 18.6.2013. The non-disclosure of the relevant fact of his conviction cannot be taken lightly. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any relief on the basis of the dictum on which reliance has been placed.
8. We find that, the CAT has in Ext.P3 taken care to direct that even though the petitioner's claim was dismissed the respondents were at liberty to consider him for appointment to a future vacancy. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there are at present a number of vacancies in existence. However, the petitioner has become over aged at present. In view of the above, it is only appropriate that his case is considered sympathetically, if he submits a proper application for appointment to a future vacancy, including the question as to whether he should be granted age relaxation for the purpose of his consideration.
In the result:
i) This original petition is dismissed.
OP(CAT)65/2016 11
ii) The petitioner is granted the liberty to submit a proper application for selection and appointment to one of he vacancies that are presently in existence, with necessary application for relaxation in age. If any such application is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be considered sympathetically, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge Sd/-
P.V.ASHA
Judge
jj /True copy/
OP(CAT)65/2016
12