Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shrinivas S/O Gourish ... vs Union Of India, on 11 November, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
B EFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU STICE ASHOK S. KINAG I
W.P.NO.68391/2010 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
SHRINIVAS S/O G OU RISH KALYANPU RKAR,
AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O NEAR KODIBE ER TEMPLE ROAD,
KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
.. PETITIONER
(B Y SHRI J.S.SHET TY, ADVOCAT E.)
AN D :
1. U NION OF IND IA
B Y ITS SECRETARY DEFENCE DEPT .
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI.
2. COMMANDER ST OCK OFFICER (CIVIL IAN)
FOR COMMODORE INCHARGE NAVAL B ASE,
KARWAR-581308.
..RESPONDENTS
(B Y SHRI M.B.KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS PETIT ION IS FILED U NDER ART ICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUT ION OF INDIA PRAY ING TH IS
COU RT T O QU ASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y
THE 2ND RESP ONDENT DATED 09.07.2010 IN
NO.C.S/1300/FOK/ E VIDE ANNEXU RE 'J ' AND ALSO
THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RES PONDENT DAT ED
10. 08.2010 IN NO.C.S/1300/FOK/E VIDE ANNEX URE
'L ' IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PET IT ION C OMING ON F OR ORDERS TH IS
DAY, THE COU RT MADE T HE FOLLOWING:
2
: ORDER :
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2010 vide Annexure-J and also order dated 10.08.2010 vide Annexure-L passed by the 2 n d respondent, this writ petition is filed.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
The petitioner belongs to fisherman community. The petitioner claims that he is the resident of Karwar and his family owned lands bearing Sy.No.279/1B of Arga village and same was acquired by the State Government for establishing the Naval Base at Karwar. The petitioner's family has become a landless and shifted their residence to Karwar.
3. The 2nd respondent has issued a notification on 29.03.2008 inviting the application for the post of Fireman and other various posts. In pursuance to the notification 3 dated 29.03.2008, the petitioner has submitted his application for the post of Fireman in the month of April, 2008. The selection process was concluded and the petitioner was selected on 03.06.2009 and appointed order was issued on 25.09.2009. The respondent issued a letter on 12.10.2009 it was intimated to the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner at Naval Base, Karwar is being examined as a recruitment procedures from this HQ are not yet completed and it was also intimated that a separate letter on completion of procedural formalities of recruitment will be issued to the petitioner in connection with his appointment at Naval Base, Karwar.
4. The petitioner went to the Naval Base, Karwar for reporting the duty. The officials of the respondent tore the appointment order and did not allow the petitioner to report to the duty. The respondent issued cancellation of 4 appointment order on 09.07.2010 as per Annexure-J on the ground that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases and having suppressed the vital information during the course of filling up of the Attestation Form and the authority has rejected the application of the petitioner.
5. After receiving the cancellation of appointment order, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that no criminal cases were pending against him as on the date of filling up of Attestation Form and the information submitted by him are the true and correct and further stated in the representation that he has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
6. After receiving the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents vide letter dated 10.08.2010 rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. 5 Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the order of cancellation of appointment order and also rejection of representation submitted by the petitioner filed this writ petition.
7. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement of objections, wherein the 2nd respondent has admitted that the petitioner was selected for the post of Fireman-Boat Crew Staff at Naval Base Karwar and further pleaded that a separate letter was sent to the petitioner intimating that on completion of procedural formalities of recruitment will be issued in connection of the appointment order. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has suppressed about the involvement in the criminal cases and furnishes of false information and suppressed about the factual information in the Attestation Form. In the Attestation Form at paragraph No.13(a) to (j) provides regarding verification of character and antecedents. The 6 Superintendent of Police has submitted a report stating that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases. Out of three cases, one case was settled in the Lok-Adalath and in two cases, the petitioner was acquitted. In view of suppression of material fact, the respondent has rightly cancelled the appointment order. Hence, respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Heard learned counsel Shri J.S.Shetty appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the 2 n d respondent and perused the records.
9. The petitioner has submitted an application for the post of Fireman in the month of April, 2008. The petitioner was selected on 03.06.2009 the petitioner has submitted Attestation Form on 18.06.2009. From the perusal of the attestation form clause (13), wherein the information has been sought from 7 the petitioner that, whether the petitioner has arrested, prosecuted or under detention i.e., clause Nos.13(a) to 13(c). The petitioner has answered for the same as "no". Even though the petitioner was involved in the criminal cases prior to the filling up of the Attestation Form, the petitioner has suppressed about his involvement in the criminal cases.
10. Respondent No.2 issued appointment order on 25.09.2009 and immediately, when respondent No.2 came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in three criminal cases, wrote a letter on 12.10.2009 as per Annexure-A informing that appointment of the petitioner is being examined as a recruitment procedure from this HQ are not yet completed and the same will be informed on the petitioner on completion of procedural formalities of recruitment.
8
11. Even after receiving the information dated 12.10.2009, the petitioner made an attempt to report to the duty on 15.10.2009. The 2 n d respondent did not permit the petitioner to report the duty on the ground that the recruitment procedure of the petitioner is not yet completed and the petitioner is not been allow to report the duty. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has cancelled the appointment order.
12. In the information given by the petitioner, the petitioner has suppressed regarding his involvement in criminal cases in the Attestation Form and further he has given false information in the Attestation Form. When the employee makes any suppression or false mention of required information, then the employee can legitimately conclude that the person who has suppressed material fact does 9 not deserves to be in his employment. The respondent has rightly cancelled the appointment order issued to the petitioner.
13. I would like to place a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.893/2020 in the case of State of Odisha and others Vs. Gobinda Behera, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the judgment in the case of Avtar Sing Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, held that the respondent seeking public employment in the State Police service. His duties on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is justifiable basis for assessment of personality 10 and character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.
14. In the present case, it is evident that despite being involved in the criminal case, the petitioner suppressed this fact from the authorities while applying for the post of Fireman. Though the petitioner in one of the cases got compromised before the Lok-Adalath and other two cases he has acquitted. However, the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in the Attestation Form.
15. In view of the above discussion and after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, this Court is of the opinion that, petitioner does not deserve to be in employment of 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has rightly cancelled the appointment order. The petitioner has not made 11 out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-