Telangana High Court
D. Saraswathi vs Registrar Admn, High Court Of ... on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21676 of 2017
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel representing Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for TSHC.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner dated 31.05.2016 and also the order dated 22.12.2016, whereby her appeal/representation against the order dated 31.05.2016 was rejected.
4. In nutshell, the relevant facts are that the petitioner submitted her candidature for the post of Office Subordinate. As per the petitioner, she disclosed the relevant facts which were required to be disclosed by her as per the verification from. Since the petitioner was selected, she was duly appointed by order dated 31.12.2015 and joined duty on 06.01.2016.
2
5. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 25.04.2016 (annexure P-2), wherein it is averred that the Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, submitted 'antecedents report' of the petitioner stating that she was prosecuted in Crime No.36 of 2012 under Sections 379, 447, 331, 506 and 120-B of IPC, and trial is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, vide C.C. No.213 of 2013. It is alleged that the petitioner has suppressed facts about her antecedents and the pendency of the criminal case against her and therefore, she should show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled.
6. The petitioner by reply dated 02.05.2016 (annexure P3) urged that the dispute which became foundation for the criminal case was a land dispute. She was not aware of any Service Rules under which she was required to furnish the aforesaid information.
7. The impugned order dated 31.05.2016 was passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a detailed appeal/representation dated 14.06.2016 (annexure P-5) which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.12.2016. Thus, the orders dated 31.05.2016 and 22.12.2016 are the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that the respondents along with their counter filed the relevant 'verification form'. The entry No.11 shows that any information required to be given by the petitioner was not suppressed by her. The limited information sought for is relating to arrest, conviction and detention of the petitioner by the respondents. No information was desired whether the petitioner was ever tried/prosecuted. In absence of requirement of disclosure of any such information, the question of suppression on the part of the petitioner does not arise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana 1 and urged that the law laid down by the Apex Court squarely covers his case.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned orders and placed reliance on clause 11 of the 'verification form'. She submits that since the petitioner has not furnished information regarding pendency of criminal case and that she was being prosecuted, the respondents have rightly cancelled her appointment for suppression of facts regarding her antecedents. 1 Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2011 dt. 22.08.2023 4
10. In his rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted from above criminal case by judgment dated 08.01.2021.
11. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
12. We have heard parties at length and perused the record.
13. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apt to re- produce the clause 11 of verification form, which reads as under:
"Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State / Central Preventive Detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against.
(Note: If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the concerned Department or the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which, it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information). If the answer is 'Yes,' the full particulars of the conviction, sentences and detention should be given."
14. The Apex Court way back in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav 2 opined that it is not the gravity of the charge or acquittal which will determine the question of 2 2003(3) SCC 437 5 suppression of facts. If certain facts were required to be disclosed but deliberately suppressed, despite the trivial nature of the charge or subsequent acquittal or dropping of the charge, the appointment can be cancelled.
15. The relevant clause of verification form in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra) was as under:
"Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence? Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form?
16. If this clause in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra) is examined in juxtaposition to the clause 11 mentioned herein above, it will be clear like noon day that in clause 11, the petitioner was not required to disclose whether she was tried or prosecuted at all. Putting it differently, the language employed in clause 11 aforesaid is totally different than the clause applicable in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra).
17. After considering the judgment of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra), the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India 3 laid down certain principles. Para 38.10 reads thus:
3
(2016) 8 SCC 471 6 "For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.
If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for."
(Emphasis supplied) (1) It is noteworthy that in the instant case there is no allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice that she was 'arrested', 'convicted' or 'detained', and such information was suppressed.
18. The ratio decidendi of this judgment is recently followed in the case of State of West Bengal (1st supra) and also in a recent judgment in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 4 On the strength of para 38.10 above, the Apex Court in clear terms held that the question of suppression does not arise where the attestation/verification form is not specific and does not require such information to be disclosed. In other words, if information was not asked for, the non-furnishing of such information/facts, by no stretch of imagination, can become reason for cancellation of appointment or treating it to be a case of 'suppression.' In view of 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 180 7 the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid cases, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have committed an error in treating that the petitioner has suppressed about her antecedents. The other allegations against the petitioner for taking 5 days' casual leave and not attending duties properly are trivial in nature and cannot form basis for 'cancellation' of appointment. Resultantly, both the orders cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
19. As a consequence, the impugned orders dated 31.05.2016 and 22.12.2016 are set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated without back wages. In other words, the petitioner shall get all consequential benefits as if she continued in employment except back wages.
20. The Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 20th June, 2024 Bdr/Prv