Karnataka High Court
Shashikant S/O Govindappa Mantur vs The Secretary on 3 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB
WP No. 102802 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.102802 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SHASHIKANT S/O. GOVINDAPPA MANTUR,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. WARD NO.10, KUNCHANUR,
BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (KPSC)
UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURER OFFICE,
K.P.C.L. BUILDING, 6TH MAIN,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
ASHPAK DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENTS
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I) QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/04/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B
(PG NO.77) PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.803/2024 BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASE TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 BEARING NO.DOT/EST4/REC1/2023/E-1002005 DATED
18/11/2023 THE COPY IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A11 (PG NO.75),
ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB
WP No. 102802 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by an order dated 2.4.2024 in Application No.803/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi1, whereunder the challenge was to the rejection of petitioner's candidature for the post of Second Division Assistant2 under Endorsement dated 18.11.2023, on the ground that he is not suitable for appointment to the post in Treasury Department.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1/Karnataka Public Service Commission3 issued notification dated 14.05.2020 calling applications to fill up 1122 posts of SDA. The petitioner being qualified applied for the post of SDA. In the qualifying examination, the applicant was successful and was selected to the post of SDA. Thereafter, he was called for 1 'Tribunal', for short 2 'SDA', for short 3 'KPSC', for short -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 verification of the original documents and for interview on 8.9.2022. On 9.1.2023, the select list was published, whereunder name of the petitioner found place at Sl.No.9. On selection, the petitioner was allotted to the Treasury Department. Respondent No.2 by letter dated 2.3.2023 addressed to the concerned police authority sought verification of antecedents and conduct of the petitioner. On 10.4.2023, the police authorities after verification, submitted a report stating that FIR was registered against the petitioner on 17.6.2019 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC in CC No.60/2019 and in the said proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted on compounding the offence by paying a fine of Rs.50,000/- before the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi. Based on the said report, Annexure-A11, endorsement dated 18.11.2023 came to be issued by respondent No.2 informing the petitioner that he is not suitable for appointment to the post in Treasury Department, as he was involved in the offence of theft, which was compounded by paying a fine of Rs.50,0000/- to the complainant. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.803/2024. The Tribunal under order dated 2.4.2024 dismissed the petitioner's application holding that it -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 cannot be said that the applicant is not involved in the allegation of moral turpitude, which ended in acquittal by compounding the offence on payment of fine of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, declined to interfere with the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2. Challenging the order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sanjay Chanal for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is acquitted of the charged offence under Section 379 of IPC, as such, he would be entitled for appointment to the post of SDA. Learned counsel would submit that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, would not stand to a reason, since the petitioner is acquitted on compounding the offence with the complainant. Learned counsel referring to Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. would submit that compounding of the offence under -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 Section 320 shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. It is further contended that when the petitioner is acquitted of the alleged offence, the respondents/authorities could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SDA.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khursheed & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another4, to contend that the resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acquitted. Thus, it is prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner contending that mere acquittal automatically would not entitle the petitioner for appointment. He submits that in terms of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself with regard to conduct and character of every candidate before appointment. Therefore, a person, who seeks government employment, shall 4 2007 AIR SCW 6444 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 be of unimpeachable character and his conduct should be suitable to the employment in government department. Further, learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner was involved in the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, which involves moral turpitude. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not faced trial and his acquittal is not on merit. The acquittal of the petitioner is by compounding the offence with the complainant by paying fine of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, it is submitted that though Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. would state that the composition of the offence under Section 320 shall be treated as acquittal, for government employment, the appointing authority shall have to examine as to whether the alleged offence involves moral turpitude and whether he would be suitable for such government employment. Thus, learned Government Advocate would justify the endorsement issued to the petitioner.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that falls for consideration is as to, whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the petitioner's application? -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024
8. Answer to the above point would be in the 'affirmative' for the following reasons:
9. The petitioner applied to the post of SDA in pursuance of notification issued by respondent No.1/KPSC dated 14.05.2020. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was successful in written examination and interview and was selected under final select list dated 9.1.2023. Respondent No.2 by letter dated 2.3.2023 addressed to the concerned police station sought report with regard to the petitioner's antecedents and character. The police after verification, forwarded the report stating that the petitioner was involved in the offence under Section 379 of IPC in CC No.60/2019 and he was acquitted on 18.9.2020 by compounding the offence on payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has not faced trial nor his acquittal is on merit. The petitioner's acquittal is under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner compounded the offence with the complainant by paying fine of Rs.50,000/-.
10. Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. would state that the composition of offence under Section 320 shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 compounded. In other words, on payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioner has been acquitted. Moreover, the alleged offence of theft under Section 379 of IPC involves moral turpitude. A person who is alleged of the offence involving moral turpitude would not be entitled for government employment, that too in Treasury Department.
11. It is pertinent to note that the application for the post of SDA was submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of notification dated 14.5.2020 issued by respondent No.1/KPSC. Prior to the said notification, on 17.6.2019 itself, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC in CC No.60/2019, wherein he was acquitted on 18.9.2020 by compounding the offence with the complainant. As on the date of filing of the application for the post of SDA, FIR for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC was under investigation against the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed to disclose the said fact in his application, which would amount to suppression of material fact. In the application, the petitioner has signed the declaration declaring that the information furnished by him in his application is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and no legal -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 caste/criminal case/disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. The said declaration is factually incorrect. When the petitioner has not disclosed the pendency of FIR registered against him under Section 379 of IPC, the petitioner is not honest and having failed to disclose true facts and who has given false declaration, would not be entitled for consideration of his case for government employment.
12. The Apex Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others5, was examining the consequences of making false statement or suppression of material information in the application form for public employment and it has held as under:
"7. This Court has considered the consequences of making a false statement or suppressing material information in verification forms in several decisions. In Delhi Administration, v. Sushil Kumar - 1996 (11) SCC 605, this Court stressed that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the state.
8. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav -
2003 (3) SCC 437, this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction etc. in the verification form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material 5 (2010) 14 SCC 103
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 information and making a false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer.
16. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from college etc.; and (ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post." (emphasis supplied)
13. The Tribunal in the present fact situation, when the petitioner himself has admitted that he has paid fine of Rs.50,000/- for compounding the case and when the matter involved moral turpitude, declined to interfere with the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of SDA.
14. The decision on which the petitioner placed reliance would have no application to the fact situation of the present case. In the case of Khursheed supra, the appellant therein was convicted and sentenced, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court and High Court. However, before the Apex Court, the parties settled the matter between themselves, since it was compoundable offence. The petitioner also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar6. In the said case, the alleged offence under Sections 323 and 34 of IPC was against family members of the candidate and the family members were acquitted prior to issuance of recruitment notification. In such circumstances, the Apex Court viewed the matter leniently.
15. For the reasons recorded supra, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. 6 2011 AIR SCW 3601
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4110-DB WP No. 102802 of 2024 Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22