Dibakar Dey vs State Of Tripura And 4 Ors

Arindam Lodh, J

Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

None appears for the respondents.

Briefly stated, the petitioner was favoured with an offer of appointment in the post of Agri. Assistant, under the Department of Agriculture. Along with the offer of appointment there was an Attestation Form (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) where “warning” was given to the petitioner to supply some material information. In Column 12(a) of the Attestation Form, the petitioner was asked to supply the following information: “Have you even been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/field, convicted by a court of law for any offence, or deterred/disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at each examination restricted by any other education authority/Institution.”

The petitioner supplied the information as “No” against this column. But, on inquiry it was found that at that point of time, the petitioner was facing a criminal trial and it is admitted position that a criminal proceeding was pending against him. So, it is a material suppression of fact. Having found that the petitioner had failed to furnish material information correctly, his offer of appointment was cancelled.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. On consideration of the records and the reasons for cancellation of offer of appointment being established, the appellate authority had rejected the prayer of the petitioner.

It is admitted fact that at the time of filling up of the Attestation Form, the petitioner had failed to furnish the material information and he supplied false information to the authority concerned.

Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had received summon of the criminal case on 16.07.2016 and he submitted the Attestation Form on 19.01.2016. But, there is a specific statement in the writ petition that the petitioner was produced before the trial Court on 16.10.2015 and on the very date itself he was released on bail. Thereafter, the police submitted charge-sheet in the said case on 30.11.2015.

In view of this, it is apparent that there was a suppression of material fact that he was the charge-sheeted accused as on 19.01.2016 and a criminal case was pending against him.

In the light of the above established facts, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.