Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Padakalla Ratna Kumar, vs The Union Of India, on 5 May, 2022

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                         1




          THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.2541 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders No. D.II.06/2015-229-EC-II(PRK), dated 04.07.2015 of the 3rd respondent and its consequential orders No.R.XIII- 50/2015-Adm-7, dated 12.11.2015 of the 2nd respondent and set aside them as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other orders".

2. Heard Mr. Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government

Counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially

appointed as CT/GH from 01.04.2013 and posted in the office of

229th Battalion till the termination orders passed on 04.07.2015

without assigning any reason and directed that the petitioner shall

be entitled to be claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay

and allowances for the period of Notice at the same rates, of which

he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his

services of as the case may be for the period by which such notice

falls short of one month. The petitioner has preferred an appeal

before the 2nd respondent on 13.07.2015 requesting to reinstate him

into service by cancelling the termination orders. The petitioner

came to know in the month of October-2013 that the police

registered a case against him on 21.02.2012. Late the criminal case

was acquitted on 11.09.2014. The appellant authority was rejected

the appeal on 12.11.2015 on the ground that the petitioner has

suppressed the criminal case, wherein he was figured as Accused

No.5 and he was arrested on 25.02.2012. It is a fact that the said

criminal case was ended in acquittal, therefore it does not warrant

the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner on the

ground of suppression of fact. Hence the present writ petition is

filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner was acquitted in the above said crime by

the competent criminal Court i.e., IV Additional Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Nellore, vide order dated 11.09.2014, in

C.C.No.111 of 2012 and in view of the same, the case of the

petitioner deserves to be considered for reinstatement. In

support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the

Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others1 ,

wherein it is held as under:

"We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

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.

While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

(2016) 8 SCC 471

In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious 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 appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order canceling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime .

In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

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 to a fact which was not even asked for.

Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits."

5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

said judgment, the respondents ought to have considered the

case of the petitioner and passed appropriate orders.

6. Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned Central Government Counsel for

the respondents has contended that the petitioner has suppressed

the fact of his involvement in a criminal case and it has come to the

notice of the respondents only in the antecedents verification and

hence, he was removed from service.