The High Court of Sikkim comprising of a bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari remarked, “If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take an appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.” (Tara Prasad Sharma v. The State of Sikkim & Anrs.)
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the High Court of Sikkim inviting applications from the eligible and interested candidates to fill up three vacant posts of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the Cadre of Sikkim Judicial Service. The petitioner aced all the tests and found a place in the Merit List of the selected candidates. The name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the State Government for the post. After the appointment, the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, Training, Public Grievances (DoPART), Government of Sikkim, vide letter informed to the Registrar General, High Court of Sikkim that one of the selected candidates (petitioner) was found involved in Police Case though acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, East Gangtok. In furtherance thereto his services were dispensed with and vide Office Order respondent no.4 was directed to be appointed on the said post.
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the petitioner contended that he was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 468 of the IPC. He has urged, it is not a case of concealment of material facts, as he has disclosed the details of the criminal case and its result acquitting him in the attestation form.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondent no.3 has filed the counter-affidavit inter alia stating that in furtherance to the notice inviting application to fill up the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the Cadre of Sikkim Judicial Service, the petitioner submitted his application.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 has inter alia contended that it is a case in which petitioner was not acquitted honorably but acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. After taking note of the same, the appointing authority has rightly exercised its discretion to discontinue the petitioner and to appoint Respondent No.4 on the said vacant post.
Courts observation and judgment
The court in the present case dismissing the present Writ Petition came to a conclusion stating “In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the inescapable conclusion is that the petition filed by the petitioner is meritless and not entitled to the relief as prayed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the facts of the case, parties to bear their own costs.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
