Md. Noor Alam vs Union Of India & Ors.

Inter alia, facts of the case and challenge of petitioner will appear from extract below of order dated 2nd May, 2018 :-

“Petitioner has challenged office order dated 8th/10th November, 2017. On an allegation of suppression of fact the office order was passed stating

his probation cannot be confirmed. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appears on behalf of the college and with reference to particulars of case given by

petitioner he demonstrates that petitioner had not mentioned charge sheet against him had been filed. Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of petitioner draws attention to attestation form, clause (b) which mentions the particulars required to be furnished. He submits, information as

to whether or not charge sheet had been filed was not required to be furnished thereby. Mr. Jahan will obtain instruction as to what was the

suppression? In other words what did the college discover against petitioner that was in addition to the information he had already furnished. The fact

that charge sheet had been filed whether is information of the consequence of an inference that he is guilty or that the position remains as already

disclosed by petitioner, that his guilt is to be proved?â€​

Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appears and hands up letter dated 7th May, 2018 of instruction given by his client. The relevant text of the letter is

reproduced below :-

“I. That the petitioner in his attestation form did not mention the nature of those pending cases, which could have been given by way of mentioning

the sections under which those criminal cases were recorded.

II. That from Police Verification Report it is revealed thatcharge sheet had already been submitted in both of those cases prior to submission of

attestation form by the petitioner, inter-alai prima-facie establishing commission of offence by the petitioner under sections 341/323/324/506 of the

Indian Penal Code and additional section 312 of the Indian Penal Code.

III. That from verification report for the first time theGKCIET authority came to learn about nature of that offences involving moral turpitude.

IV. That in terms of MHA OM No.18011/9(s)/78-Estt.(B)dated 02.07.1982, any person against whom there is substantial evidence of, participation or

association with, any subversive or criminal activity or such activities as may render them unsuitable for public employment, or are considered likely to

affect their integrity and efficiency in service, is to be considered as unsuitable for employment under Government.

V. That had the petitioner disclosed about the sectionsinvolved in the pending criminal cases as well as fact of submissions of Charge sheet, he would

not have been appointed to the present post, since one of those criminal case is involving moral turpitude and on completion of investigation police had

submitted charge sheet by prima-facie establishing the allegations.

VI. That in terms of Rule 10 of CCS CCA Rules, anyprobationer if later on found ineligible for appointment, his service shall be terminated. This is for

your information and necessary steps.â€​

It appears that the institute subsequently came upon information regarding the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which petitioner stood charged

to infer the charges related to moral turpitude. This Court is not able to appreciate that there was or can be an inference of moral turpitude from the

charges levelled against petitioner. They relate to wrongful restraint of person, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, criminal

intimidation and causing miscarriage. Mr. Ahmed hands up judgment dated 21st March, 2018 in G.R. 1059 of 2008 of Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Malda by which, inter alia, petitioner was acquitted from the case under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The acquittal is irrelevant information for the purposes of this case. What is important is that inference of moral turpitude from the charges, as could

not be made because the same was said to have been suppressed, is a contention which this Court does not accept. Information required was

supplied. No disclosure or submission has been made to show otherwise. The writ petition succeeds. Order dated 10th November, 2017 is set aside

and quashed. The consequences of setting aside the said order petitioner is entitled to.