AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd July, 2009 in
Special Civil Application No. 6684 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner was appointed as Vidyut Sahayak (Helper) with the Respondents, by order dated 3rd February, 2007 for a fixed period of three
years. Before the Petitioner was appointed, a criminal case under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged
against the Petitioner. He concealed this fact in the application, which he made with the Respondents, at the time of appointment that he was
involved in the criminal case. In the appointment letter, in para-12, it was mentioned that if the Petitioner is found to have been convicted in any
criminal case, then his appointment would be cancelled. This criminal case was compromised by the Petitioner before Lok Adalat on 7th April,
2007 after he joined the service. He was found to be guilty under Bombay Police Act and rest of the offences were compounded and he was
acquitted. This fact of pendency of criminal case came to light in the police verification report as after the appointment of the Petitioner, the police
verification was sought by the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Anand Acharya alias
Bharat Kumar Sadhu, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1542 and has urged that punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and since in that
case, punishment of removal was reduced to stoppage of two increments by High Court and therefore, the Apex Court did not interfere. This
decision is of no help to the Appellant in view of the fact that the Appellant was appointed only for a fixed period of three years. He was neither a
regular employee nor a permanent employee of the Respondents. A person, at the time of his appointment, is supposed to make correct
declaration about the fact as to whether a criminal case is pending against him or not and whether he is convicted in a criminal case or not. He
should be fair to the employer. In our opinion, non-disclosure of the fact that a criminal case was pending against him amounts to misleading the
employer and on his misrepresentation, the Respondents had appointed him. Had the fact of criminal case pending against him been disclosed, the
Respondents would not have appointed the Appellant in service.
We are further of the opinion that non-disclosure of the criminal proceedings pending against an employee/Appellant is a serious matter which
calls for his termination from service as he had obtained obtained appointment fraudulently by making false representation.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant then urged that the order dated 26th March, 2007 castes stigma on him as it is mentioned that his services
are terminated with effect from 26th February, 2007 in light of the provisions of para-16 of GSO-07 due to his involvement in a criminal case. In
this regard, the Appellant has placed reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others, and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi,
Para-16 of General Standing Order No. 5 dated 24.9.1960 of Gujarat State Electricity Board reads as under:
Any candidate who is found to have knowingly furnished any particulars which are false or who have suppressed material, information of a
character which, if known, would ordinarily have debarred him from obtaining employment in the service of the Board, is liable to be disqualified
and if appointed, to be removed from service.
The impugned order of termination mentions that the Appellant has been terminated in light of the provisions of para-16 of GSO-07 extracted
above, due to involvement in a criminal case. We are of the considered opinion that the mention of GSO and involvement of the Appellant in a
criminal case does not cast any stigma on the Appellant. The Apex Court decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant do not
help him as they were cases of probationers, whereas the Appellant was appointed for a fixed period of three years only and his services have
been terminated by only mentioning the fact that he has concealed his involvement in a criminal case. We do not find any illegality in the impugned
order dated 26th March, 2007 passed by the Respondents as well as the judgment dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge.
This Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. The parties shall bear their own costs.