Sunil Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India Thru Secy. And 3 ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 7338 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20767 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tripathi
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,H.K. Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,S.C.,Smt. Archana Singh,Sudheer Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari,J.

Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.

(Per Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the orders dated 03.12.2012 and 28.12.2012(Annexures - 9 and 10 respectively) whereby the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOC' in short) has rejected his candidature for selection as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak ('RGGLV' in short) after finding that at the time of making the application for selection, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case pertaining to the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC wherein, charges had been framed against him by the Sessions Court at Jaunpur, but this material fact was deliberately concealed by him.

Put in a nutshell, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the IOC issued an advertisement on 26.03.2011 for selection of RGGLV at various locations including Bhuluwahi, District Jaunpur in open category. The petitioner submitted his application for selection as RGGLV for the said location at Bhuluwahi; and got selected in the draw of lots on 19.10.2011. However, before further steps were taken for award of dealership to the petitioner, a complaint was made by one Km. Akanksha Singh pointing out, inter alia, that the petitioner Shri Sunil Kumar Tripathi and his brother Shri Avadhesh Tripathi were involved in a pending criminal case bearing No. 11 of 2008 pertaining to the offences under Sections 302/201 IPC. The said Km. Akanksha Singh also filed a writ petition bearing No. 64399 of 2011 in this Court stating grievance against rejection of her candidature and selection of the present petitioner. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 14.11.2011 with reference to the process as provided under Clause 12 and 15 of the brochure relating to the selection in question whereby, the grievance and complaint could have been made for consideration under a redressal system provided by the respondent - IOC.

The said complainant, thereafter, made a representation stating the abovementioned facts about involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case. The petitioner, who was also afforded an opportunity of hearing, inter alia, contended that he was not involved in any criminal case pertaining to moral turpitude and/ or economic offence; and that in Case No. 11 of 2008, he had already been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011.

The General Manager of the respondent - IOC proceeded to consider the contentions of the parties as also the record, including the contents of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner with the application that he had never been convicted nor charges had been framed against him by any Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and/ or for economic offence. It was also noticed that in the affidavit, the petitioner had accepted the responsibility for cancellation of his candidature in case any information given by him was found to be incorrect/ false/ misrepresented.

The General Manager, on being satisfied that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the material information, held that his candidature was liable to be rejected. In the order so passed by the General Manager on 03.12.2012(Annexure - 9), there had been other observations as regards the candidature of the petitioner's brother too but the same is not required to be dilated upon for being not the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioner was, thereafter, informed by the order dated 28.12.2012 (Annexure - 10) about rejection of his candidature in the following terms :-

"Please refer to your application (ALD/BHALUWAHI/13) for award of above mentioned LPG distributorship (RGGLV).

We regret to inform you that upon disposal of grievance/ representation - (W/P NO. 64399/2011 filed by Km Akanksha Singh) by the competent authority vide speaking order dated 3.12.2012, it is found that you had submitted false affidavit that charges had not been framed by any court of law against you. Offence of which you had been booked under 302 of IPC comes under the ambit of Moral Turpitude as well. Moreover, you had concealed this information that you were accused in the criminal case involving moral turpitude which can be termed as concealment of fact.

The above affects the eligibility criteria of the applicant as per RGGLV selection guidelines. Thus you are ineligible for subject RGGLV location.

In view of the above your candidature is rejected.

Above is for you kind information please."

Seeking to question the orders aforesaid, the petitioner has annexed with this petition a copy of the so called affidavit of the said complainant Km. Akanksha Singh dated 20.02.2012 to the effect that she had made the complaint due to inadequate knowledge of the relevant facts; and that as at present, no case was registered at any police station and she had no objection with regard to the award of dealership to the petitioner.

It is contended that the petitioner having been honourably acquitted of all the charges in Session Trial No. 11 of 2008 in the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Court No.2, Jaunpur, it is apparent that he had been falsely implicated in the said criminal case and there was no justification in canceling his candidature. It is also submitted that at the time of moving the application, the petitioner was neither convicted nor any charges had been proved against him and thus, he had filed the affidavit with the application under a bona fide impression. It is also suggested that when the allegations had been exaggerated to the extent of absurdity and were proved to be false in the trial, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been involved in an offence involving moral turpitude so as to be denied the consideration of his candidature for award of dealership.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decisions in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 3 UPLBEC 2068, Rashid Khan (Recruit Constable) Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 2 UPLBEC 1218, and Writ - C No. 1766 of 2011, Smt. Raj Kumari Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that in this matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

It is not in dispute that while making the application, the petitioner was called upon to disclose the facts if he was convicted or charged in a criminal case involving moral turpitude and/ or economic offence. It was also specifically undertaken by the petitioner that if any information was found to be wrong, false or incorrect, even the awarded dealership could be cancelled. It is also not in dispute that neither in the application nor in the affidavit accompanying the application, the petitioner disclosed the fact that on the relevant date i.e., 23.04.2011, he was facing criminal trial along with other persons for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC in Session Trial No. 11 of 2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Court No.2, Jaunpur. What the petitioner stated in his affidavit, as regards his involvement in criminal case, had been as under :-

"6- fd fdlh U;k;ky; esa dHkh Hkh fdlh vkijkf/kd okjnkr ds fy, ftlesa pfj=ghurk [email protected];k vkfFkZd vijk/k 'kkfey gSa ¼Lora=rk laxzke dks NksM+dj½] eq>s u rks nks"kh djkj fn;k gS vkSj u gh esjs f[kykQ dHkh dksbZ vkjksi yxk, x, gSaA"

The above mentioned statement had been incorrect, and at any rate, incomplete on material particulars. From a copy of the judgment dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure - 7) it transpires that the accusation in the said criminal case had been that an altercation took place between the petitioner and the deceased Shyam Singh on 12.08.2007; and, continuing with such enmity, the petitioner and other accused persons assaulted the complainant and the deceased on 16.08.2007 while they were going on a motorcycle; and after giving the deceased severe beatings, threw him down the bridge with motorcycle. It remains a fact, of course, that the petitioner and other accused persons were acquitted by the Sessions Court after finding shortcomings too many in the prosecution case but, as on the date of application for selection in question, i.e., 24.03.2011, it could not have been concluded by the petitioner himself that no charge had been framed against him for an offence involving moral turpitude.

We may observe that act of killing a person may or may not come within the broad concept of the moral turpitude depending on the facts of the each case. In fact, whether any offence involves moral delinquency is a question of fact; and the term moral turpitude may have different meanings in different context. Generally speaking, it means to be a conduct contrary to the justice, honesty or good morals; and contrary to what a person owes to the society in general. It is a conduct suggesting of such depravity as to evoke the feelings of disgust and contempt; and several are the factors which would determine whether the offence involved moral turpitude or not. Thus, for the purpose of deciding as to whether he was involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or not, it was in the first place required of the petitioner that all the facts were truly and faithfully, in a forthright manner, disclosed with the particulars of the criminal case. It remains a matter of fact that the petitioner chose not to divulge the information about the criminal case at all.

For the petitioner having suppressed material information about the pending criminal case involving a grave offence, the petitioner had disentitled himself from consideration of his candidature. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal: (2013) 9 SCC 363 as under :-

12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.

13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."

We may observe that the selection in question had been for the purpose of appointment of RGGLV. That necessarily means distributorship of LPG in the rural areas. Such a person ought to be carrying the credentials as a dependable one who could be entrusted with the task of dealing with the public and fairly distributing LPG in rural areas. In the given set of facts and circumstances and particularly when the petitioner chose to suppress the material information, the respondents do not appear having committed any illegality in rejecting his candidature. We may also refer to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 as follows :-

"12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service.......... "

Thus in the present case, the petitioner having suppressed the material information regarding pending criminal case for offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, the respondents cannot be faulted in rejecting his candidature.

The decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not provide support to the case sought to be made out herein, for essentially the said cases proceeded on their own facts. So far as the decision in Ram Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, the appellant therein had been acquitted on 18.07.2002 and for this reason, while furnishing the affidavit on 12.06.2006 in the prescribed verification roll, he had not referred to the criminal case. It was also noticed that the case related to a minor incident involving the offence under Sections 324/34, 504 IPC. As noticed, in the present case, the petitioner had been charged for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and the trial was pending when he filed the application but he did not disclose the facts concerning the pending case. Similarly, the decision in Rashid Khan's case (supra) also proceeded on its own facts where the appellant had been involved in the cases of minor offences and the Court found that at the time of lodging of the first information report of some cases, he was a minor and no knowledge could be imputed upon him about the cases. The decision in Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (supra) does not have even a remote relevance to the present case. In the said case, the petitioner had been a fair price shop dealer and the first information report came to be lodged for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act on 01.09.2009 wherefor the dealership was placed under suspension on 03.09.2009 and then, the SDO proceeded to cancel the dealership on 10.08.2010 only on the ground of lodging of the first information report and that because of continued suspension, the card holders attached to the shops were facing hardship. In the present case, the question essentially is of concealment of material information. The decision in Smt. Raj Kumari Singh has, therefore, no application.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, where the petitioner had been guilty of suppression of material information, whether the complainant stands by her complaint or not is hardly of any relevance. The alleged affidavit of the complainant filed with this writ petition cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner so as to wipe out the effect of his active concealment of the material facts.

For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the view that the decision of the respondent - IOC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for concealment of material information in the application cannot be faulted at; and does not call for interference in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 09.10.2014

Mustaqeem.

(S. S. Chauhan, J.)    (Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)