Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R R V U N Ltd vs Rajesh Suman &Anr; on 23 May, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.981/2015 Raj. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Suman & Anr. Date : 23-5-2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani Mr. Virendra Lodha Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jai Lodha Adv., for appellant. Mr. Babu Lal Saini, Dy. GC for State. Mr. Rajvir Sharma Adv., for respondent.
Instant special appeal is directed against order of the learned Single Judge impugned dt.21-8-2015.
The basic facts which are relevant for present purpose are that the post of Technician Grade-III came to be advertised by the appellant (Electricity Company) & the process of selection was initiated & the present respondent-original writ petitioner after undergoing the process of selection on being found suitable was offered appointment vide order dt.15-5-2015 and his name finds place in the select list at serial no.21 & was called upon to join his duties at the place of posting assigned to him. Apart from other conditions, it was also a requirement that the candidate has to submit police verification & that was obtained by the respondent-writ petitioner from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kota City dt.1-6-2015 which he submitted in the office of the appellant and proceeded to join duty was not allowed because of institution of a criminal case against him and at this stage he approached to this Court by filing a writ petition.
At the outset it may be noticed that there is no such requirement in the application form which the candidate has to fill in terms of the advertisement making declaration of pendency of criminal case either instituted or pending against him or the fate of criminal case if at any point of time instituted against him but the requirement to be fulfilled is at the stage when the candidate stands selected & being called for verification of documents, indisputably that has been complied with by the respondent-writ petitioner by making declaration, as prescribed by the respondent, copy of which is placed on record Annx.A2 to the writ petition, running into two pages & in para-3 one has to declare as to whether any criminal case is pending against him or has been convicted by any court of law in any criminal case & if convicted details thereof has to be furnished in para-4/5 thereof accordingly. Perusal of Annx.2 to the writ petition makes it manifestly clear that in para-5 of the declaration the respondent-writ petitioner declared about pendency of a criminal case & also indicated the Court where the case is pending against him and it is all thereafter he was offered appointment vide order dt.15-5-2015 & that apart he also submitted the police verification indicating of criminal case pending against him as evident from the certificate issued from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kota City dt.1-6-2015 Annx.6 annexed to the writ petition.
In the reply filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, their sole defence was that he has suppressed the material information & didn't disclose the required information about pendency of criminal case instituted against him and that being so the very appointment offered to him was void & no error was committed by the authorities in declining/withholding his appointment & in support of submission counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttarnchal & Ors, (2013)9 SCC 363.
Counsel for respondent on the other hand while supporting order impugned of the learned Single Judge submits that once the declaration was made by the respondent-writ petitioner about pendency of criminal case, what was required by the recruiting authority has been complied with by the respondent-writ petitioner & it doesn't appear to be a case of suppression of material information & as regards his overall suitability to the post is concerned he has faced/undergone the selection process initiated for the post of Technician Grade-III, after due verification of criminal case instituted against him his suitability to the post was adjudged & appointment was offered to him vide order dt.15-5-2015 and apart from it he obtained police verification report from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kota City dt.1-6-2015, which he immediately submitted in the office of the appellant and under these facts & circumstances it could not have been considered to be a case of suppression of material information as considered by the appellants & this what the learned Single Judge also observed under order impugned and after finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that he has not suppressed the material information the judgment on which the counsel for appellant has placed reliance reported in (2013)9 SCC 363 may not be of any assistance to them.
We have heard counsel for the parties & with their assistance perused the material on record.
At the outset it may be noticed that in the advertisement which was issued by the appellant company holding selection for the post of Technician Grade-III the last date of submission of on-line form was 14-11-2013 and the date of written test tentatively fixed was 15-11-2013 & those who qualified the written test obviously could be eligible for being called for verification of their documents/certificates.
It may be noticed that at the time of filling up the application form there is no such requirement for a candidate to disclose about institution/pendency of criminal case or conviction in the criminal case instituted, if there is any, & the information is to be disclosed when the candidates are finally selected after undergoing the process of selection & called for verification of their documents/certificates, at this stage a declaration was to be made copy of which is placed on record Annx.R.2 to the writ petition & page 2, in para-5 thereof one has to disclose about institution of criminal case, if any, pending before the competent court of jurisdiction and perusal of the declaration submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner in the office of the appellant, reveals that apart from he has indicated about pendency of criminal case, disclosed fate of the criminal case instituted against him, however the kind of offence being committed may not be of that significance but on the face value the declaration made by the respondent-writ petitioner, of which we have taken notice, page2 of the declaration form para5 indicates about pendency of criminal case & taking into consideration the matter in totality of what is being indicated by the respondent-writ petitioner, which is the sole emphasis of counsel for appellant to persuade that the respondent-writ petitioner has concealed/ suppressed the material information in the declaration form, in our view cannot be said to be suppression of material information & for the sake of convenience para3 & 5 of the declaration form is quoted as under :-
3. That neither any criminal case is pending against me nor I have been convicted by any court of Court of Law in any Criminal case.
5. That a criminal case is pending against me before Civil Judge (J.D.) South (Kota) (Name of Court) in Criminal Case NO.129/2007 in the offence under Section 323, 341 IPC Wherein Challan has been filed/has not yet been filed.
The only defence/emphasis of the appellant before the learned Single Judge as also before this Court is that page-2 of the declaration form was not annexed by the respondent-writ petitioner at the time when he appeared for verification of his documents on 15-4-2015 and Sh. Virendra Lodha Sr. Adv., assisted by Sh. Jai Lodha Adv., has tried to persuade this Court that Annx.2 which the respondent-writ petitioner has furnished annexed to the writ petition he has suppressed the material information but we are not convinced with the kind of distinction being shown by the authorities for the reason that the respondent-writ petitioner appeared before the concerned competent authority for verification of his documents on 15-4-2015 the date which must have been informed to him and the date of verification on the said document has been put by officials of the appellant when he appeared along with his documents for its verification on 15-4-2015 & the declaration Annx.2 to the writ petition runs into two pages & even the documents' verification has been carried out by the person authorised by the appellant & that being so certainly presumption can be drawn that if such declaration form would not have been submitted by the respondent-writ petitioner in full it was open for the appellant to call upon the respondent-writ petitioner to furnish such declaration form which according to them was the pre-requisite condition to offer appointment & even thereafter he also furnished the certificate which he obtained from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kota City dt.1-6-2015 which indicates about pendency of criminal case but the authority declined to permit him to join duty on the premise that there is suppression/concealment of material information of a criminal case instituted against him which was not submitted by him in the declaration form and that being so his appointment is void & he is not entitled to make any claim but we find that what is being contended by the appellant before us is not supported by any tangible evidence on record in support thereof.
There could not be any dispute that after judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013(9) SCC 363 this legal position has been finally settled that in a case of suppression of material information the selection of the candidate in the facts & circumstances of the case can be void and he is not entitled to seek appointment & even in a case where he was offered appointment by suppressing material information the authorities are within their rights to cancel the appointment at a later stage even if appointment being offered in compliance thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-12 of the judgment observed ad infra :-
12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.
In the instant case, as already observed its not a case of suppression of material information & as regards the document Annx.2 to the writ petition on which the sole emphasis has been put by the counsel for appellant, page 2 of the declaration form para 5 indicates that the respondent-writ petitioner has disclosed about pendency of criminal case against him & that apart a certificate has also been furnished by him which he obtained from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kota City dt.1-6-2015 and it was never the case of the appellant that if such information would have been made available, his suitability for the post could be adjudged and he is suitable for appointment and after hearing counsel for the parties we too are of the view that its not a case of suppression of material information which could dis-entitle him from seeking appointment for which he has been finally selected & placed in the order of merit & offered appointment vide order dt.15-5-2015. It is also informed to this Court as regards the criminal case registered against him, so far offence u/Ss 323 & 341 IPC, being compoundable offence, on a compromise arrived at between the parties, in terms of Sec.320 Cr.P.C. he stands acquitted & as regards offence u/S 326 IPC is concerned, the charge stood quashed on a petition being filed u/S 482 Cr.P.C. after recording the statement of the complainant that it was instituted on account of some misunderstanding.
After hearing counsel for the parties and taking note of the submissions made & what is being observed by the Ld. Single Judge under order impugned, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not been able to make out a case of suppression of material information by the respondent-writ petitioner & we do not find any error being committed by the learned Single Judge in passing order impugned which may require our interference in the instant intra court appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is without substance & accordingly dismissed.
(Dinesh Chandra Somani), J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS/