Ashish Kumar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 31.3.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been dismissed from service on the ground that at the time of obtaining employment and submitting verification form, he did not disclose the information about the criminal case registered as Crime No. 23/11, under section 302, IPC, PS Surajpur and thus he has made himself ineligible and disqualified for securing public employment.

Petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 26.9.2013. He joined the services and continued on the said post. On the basis of the verification form submitted by him, the appointing authority summoned a verification report from the concerned Superintendent of Police, The Superintendent of Police, Surajpur sent a verification report to the petitioner''s appointing authority mentioning about the registration of above mentioned criminal case against him. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show-cause notice on 25.1.2014, requiring him as to why appropriate action may not be taken against him, in accordance with the condition No. 5 of the appointment order.

The petitioner submitted his reply informing the authority that the criminal case has already ended in his acquittal by judgment rendered by the First ASJ, Surajpur on 25-11-2011 in S.T. No. 144/11, therefore, since criminal case was not pending on the date of seeking employment, it does not create a bar against the petitioner and his services may not be terminated.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed period of probation. Even otherwise, condition No. 5 of his appointment order stipulated that if adverse verification report is submitted by the police department, his services shall be terminated with immediate effect.

At the time of selection and joining, the petitioner was required to fill up a verification form containing column 12 in the following manner:--

Concededly, the petitioner did not mention the registration of criminal case against him while submitting verification form and registration of the said criminal case against him came to the notice of the appointing authority when the concerned Superintendent of Police submitted adverse report against the petitioner.

The issue with which this Court is required to deal is whether nondisclosure of registration of a criminal case, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted would make him eligible for remaining in employment?

In the matter of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3325 : (2013) 139 FLR 284 : (2013) 10 JT 566 : (2013) LabIC 4279 : (2013) 4 LLN 450 : (2013) 9 SCALE 703 : (2013) 9 SCC 363 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 270 : (2013) 4 SCT 482 : (2013) AIRSCW 4938 , the Supreme Court has held that issue of obtaining appointment by misrepresentation is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. Pendency of criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against the person may not involve moral turpitude but suppression of 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 case in hand also the information required from an appointee is not only about pendency of a criminal case but also about registration or initiation of any criminal case at any point of time. Therefore, even if an appointee is acquitted in a previously instituted criminal case and the same was not pending at the time of securing appointment, such information is also liable to be furnished. Withholding of this information constitutes an attempt to keep the employer in dark about the antecedent. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.