The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Sameer Jain upheld the termination of an employee who obtained a compassionate appointment by concealment of facts.
Background:
Petitioner filed this Petition to challenge the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner was given an appointment for the post of LDC on compassionate grounds. He has disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, a show cause notice dated 11.12.2013 was issued, wherein it was reflected by the respondents that two criminal cases were found pending against the petitioner.
Representation dated 10.10.2014 was filed, but rejected and termination order was passed vide order dated 18.03.2015
CAT held that the termination order holding that was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.
Submission:
- Learned counsel on the above facts has submitted that the order passed by CAT is per se illegal in view of the settled proposition of law.
- He has submitted that the petitioner in question was merely a tenth pass and he had disclosed necessary details as required under clause-13 of the form. It was only because of the paucity of space that due details only under clause-13(J) were not furnished.
- There was no wilful suppression of information, in fact, it was a bonafide mistake because of lack of space. In support of his claim, he has placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment titled Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2829.
Order of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.
Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition and refusing to interfere with the order of CAT, observed,
"In the prescribed form in Clause-13, details were specifically asked for. Petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The learned Tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner. Further, the learned tribunal has also considered the Apex Court judgment titled Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016)"
In Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Apex Court had observed, "Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information".
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors.
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Sameer Jain
Picture Source :
