Bombay High Court
Jaideo Son Of Kacharu Patil vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 17 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007 (4) BomCR 255, 2007 (6) MhLj 144
Author: A Joshi
Bench: A Joshi, R Chavan
JUDGMENT
A.H. Joshi, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is called for final disposal by consent. After notice by this Court, contesting respondent has filed affidavit.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner herein was appointed in the employment of respondent No. 2. Prior to appointment, as per the conditions of service, like any other candidate, petitioner had to undergo the mandatory procedure of furnishing information in the Attestation Form. The Attestation Form contained three warnings. Warning No. 2, which is relevant, reads as follows:
2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission 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 a suppression of factual information.
[quoted from page 21 of the paper-book of the Writ Petition].
4. Admittedly, the Attestation Form was submitted on 11th April, 2003. Offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered and petitioner suffered prosecution, and has undergone the trial for said offence.
5. Petitioner was successful in preventing the arrest at the hands of police, as he appeared and surrendered before the Magistrate, and was later on released on bail.
6. Petitioner has not disclosed in the body of petition, nor did the learned Advocate for the petitioner even on questioned by the Court as to what was the duration between the date of surrender before the Magistrate and was then released on bail.
7. After completion of first spell of employment, during which period the Police Verification Report revealed the lodgment of First Information Report, the petitioner being in magisterial custody and tried etc.
8. The employer, therefore, discharged the petitioner from service on the ground of failure to furnish information as warned in Warning No. 2 in the Attestation Form.
9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that since occurrence of the offence was latter in time, expecting the candidate to furnish information which did not exist on the date of submission of form is asking for an impossibility.
10. The respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit and brought to the notice of the Court that the contents of Warning No. 2 which fastened a duty to the candidate of any such thing even if it occurs subsequent to the date of submission of the Attestation Form immediately.
11. Learned Advocate for the petitioner did not reply as to how did the petitioner rescue himself from this burden. He, however, emphasized on the fact that it was not a case of arrest by police, but voluntary appearance/surrender before Magistrate. He further urged that the subtleness of any content in Warning No. 2 is beyond comprehension of a layman.
12. On the facts of case, we find that the legal advice the petitioner had, or the prudence which he possessed, and as seen from his behaviour, was high enough that he could himself avoid arrest by appearing/surrendering before the Magistrate. The plea of lack of understanding due to subtleness of the language of Warning No. 2, in our view, is not available to the petitioner.
13. We had the advantage of perusal of the Judgment of acquittal which is placed on record. In this case, plea of the petitioner is not of too innocent nature the way the petitioner has tried to over-simplify it. In the said case of charge under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, the petitioner had the defence of sexual intercourse by consent, and as the petitioner's luck may, the complainant died before the trial. This fortune of acquittal, which the petitioner had, cannot be of added use to the petitioner in the aforesaid background.
14. Learned Advocate for the petitioner then placed reliance on reported Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secy., Deptt. Of Home Secy., A.P. and Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu All India Services Law Journal VI - 2005 (2) 233. We find that on the facts of present case, the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court has no application.
15. We, therefore, hold that the Central Administrative Tribunal, who rejected he petitioner's claim, did it so rightly. Petitioner pretends to play simpleton, while the facts seem to be otherwise. We, therefore, discharge the Rule with costs.
