Vijay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2017

[Cites 9, Cited by 16]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijay Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2017

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned order Annexure P/5 dated 21.5.2007 passed by respondent No.2 District Education Officer, Chhatarpur and also to seek direction to decide the case of the petitioner as per the order of this Court dated 19.7.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.5940/2003.

2. The facts not in dispute are that in the present case vide order dated 15.11.88 issued by the Deputy Director, School Education Department Chhatarpur, the petitioner was appointed and allowed to join in service as Assistant Teacher. As per letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police Annexure P/4B registration of two offences was disclosed on the date of entering into the service, the order impugned Annexure P/1 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner on 28.10.1989. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing Original Application No.2951/1989 before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which stood transferred to this Court and registered as Writ Petition No. 5940/2003. In the said case while disposing it, this Court on 19.7.2004 has observed as under:-

''Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Govt.

Advocate for the respondents.

Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Govt.

Advocate seeks further time to file return. It be seen that this petition, in which the petitioner is seeking relief of reinstatement and challenging his termination order dated 29.10.89 (Annexure-H) was filed on 17.11.89.

The respondents have not yet filed their return even after 15 years. Taking the note of abnormal delay in filing the return, this Court on 29.4.2004 directed the respondents to file return and the petition was directed to be listed for final hearing in the month of July, 2004. The respondents have not yet filed any return, therefore, this petition is heard finally.

The petitioner has challenged his termination order dated 29.10.89 (Annexure- H) issued by the Deputy Director, School Education Department, Chhatarpur, by which on account of suppressing the requisite information required to be given in Column No.12 of Character Verification Form, his services have been terminated.

Vide Annexure-B dated 15.11.1988 issued by the office of the Deputy Director, School Education, Chhatarpur, addressed to the petitioner it was directed that he should remain present on 28.11.88 alongwith requisite original certificates mentioned in item Nos.1 to 13 in the said Annexure. Thereafter, vide order Annexure-A dated 18.11.88, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. The department on coming to know that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner issued two show cause notices to him and they are Annexure-D and Annexure- E dated 11.8.89 and 20.8.89 respectively.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in these notices it has been mentioned that two criminal cases at 3 Crime No.33/84 {it has been wrongly mentioned everywhere in the order dated 19.7.2004 as Crime No.33/84 while infact on perusal of the record it appears to be Crime No.133/84} pertaining to Sections 147/148/323/506-B IPC and second case at Crime No.17/89 under Sections 307/147/148/149/294 IPC are pending against the petitioner. In the notice it has been mentioned that the case bearing Crime No.33/84 is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijawar and another case registered at Crime No.17/89 is under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.88 Annexure-A and the second case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1989 because the crime number is of the year 1989 and, therefore, this case was registered after the appointment of the petitioner. His another contention is that so far as the case registered at Crime No.33/84 is concerned, in that case, the petitioner was acquitted. According to the learned counsel, on going through to the impugned order Annexure-H it is not clear that which specific information the petitioner has suppressed and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-H) cannot be allowed to stand.

On the other hand, it has been contended by Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Govt. Advocate that because the petitioner has suppressed the information, which was required to be supplied by him in Column No.12 of the Character Verification Form, therefore, rightly the impugned order (Annexure-H) has been issued. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437.

There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as Crime No.17/89 is concerned, the case was registered after the appointment of the 4 petitioner. It be seen that the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.88 while it appears that the case was registered in the year 1989 as it was apparent that from the crime number (17/89), therefore, the question of suppressing the pendency of the said case does not arise.

So far as pendency of crim9inal case against the petitioner at Crime No.33/84 is concerned, the same was pending when notice (Annexure-D) dated 11.5.89 was issued to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been acquitted in that case. On going through Annexure-D it is revealed that the case was registered under Sections 147/148/323/506-B IPC. Though it has been contended by learned counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case, however, copy of the judgment has not been annexed to this petition. Therefore, one cannot say that the petitioner was acquitted in that case or not.

On going through Annexure-H it is not clear that which information has been suppressed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the respondent No.2/District Education Officer, Chhatarpur, is hereby directed to look after the matter of the petitioner and may pass fresh order in that regard. The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish copy of the order/judgment of his acquittal to the said authority. Let the decision be taken within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioner furnishes certified copy of his order as well as certified copy of the order/judgment of acquittal by respondent No.2.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.''

3. In furtherance to the direction of this Court, the District Education Officer, Chhatarpur has again passed the 5 order Annexure P/5 dated 21.5.2007 terminating his service observing that petitioner has concealed the information regarding pendency of the case before the competent Court, therefore, the representation is rejected. The respondent/State has taken the same stand as taken in the order impugned, however, it is not required to be reiterated in detail.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the facts of the present case, it appears that after the appointment of the petitioner, he submitted the Form No.3A filling up Column No.12 wherein pendency of the criminal case pertaining to Crime No.133/84 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bijawar was mentioned as Criminal Case N0.579/84, therefore, on the date of commencement of the employment of the petitioner, the description of crime number was there. It is to be noted here that as per the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5940/2003, it has been observed that Crime No.17/89 was registered after commencement into the employment in the year 1989, therefore, the question of suppressing pendency of the case does not arise. The said finding of this Court has not been considered while passing the order impugned Annexure P/5 dated 21.5.2007 by the District Eduction Officer, Chhatarpur.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the fact remains that the case registered at Crime No.133/84 was only the case which was pending against the petitioner at the time of commencement of the employment, which was disclosed by him in Column No.12. In the said case, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 9.7.1993 passed by Judicial 6 Magistrate First Class, Bijawar. The reference of other case was not relevant for the purpose of Column No.12 of the Verification Form, therefore, merely relying upon the letter of Deputy Inspector General of Police referring pendency of two cases on the date of communication dated 18.7.1989 is of no relevance, which has been relied in the order impugned.

6. In view of the finding of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the said letter ought not to be relied upon by the District Education Officer, Chhatarpur but ignoring the finding of the Court, the letter of Deputy Inspector General of Police has been relied upon, therefore also, the order Annexure P/5 dated 21.5.2007 is without application of mind.

7. Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court by three Judges Bench in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and others reported in 2016 (4) MPLJ 332 has laid down the guidelines which are being reproduced as under:-

''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 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 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 appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the 8 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 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.

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.''

8. Considering the aforesaid, it is to be held that the order of termination Annexure P/1 dated 28.10.1989 as well as the order rejecting representation Annexure P/5 dated 21.5.2007 are based on the incorrect information furnished by the District Education Officer Chhatarpur, therefore, both the aforesaid orders stand quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. In case the order is not passed by the said authority within the time so specified then treating the petitioner into employment, he be allowed to join by the respondent No.2 District Education Officer, Chhatarpur within a period of two weeks from the date of production of proof of presentation of certified copy of this order and on filing the affidavit in this regard.

9. With these observations, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(J.K.Maheshwari) Judge amit 10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court