Mangesh Murlidhar Shamkule vs The Union Of India And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1493 Bom

     jdk                                                      1                                              4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8979 OF 2016

    Mangesh Murlidhar Shamkule                                                         ]
    Age 39 years, Occ: Casual Labour                                                   ]
    R/o Behind Ali Petrol Pump                                                         ]
    Gautam Nagar Road,                                                                 ]
    Punekar Society, Bhadrawati,                                                       ]
    Tal. Bhadrawati,                                                                   ]
    Dist. Chandrapur 442902                                                            ].. Petitioner

                        Vs.

    1. The Union of India,                                                             ]
       Represented through the                                                         ]
       Secretary, Ministry of Defence,                                                 ]
       South Block, New Delhi-1                                                        ]
                                                                                       ]
    2. The D.G.O.F. / Chairman,                                                        ]
       Ordnance Factory Board,                                                         ]
       10-A, S.K. Bose Road,                                                           ]
       Kolkata 700 001                                                                 ]
                                                                                       ]
    3. The General Manager,                                                            ]
       Ordnance Factory, Chanda,                                                       ]
       Bhadrawati,                                                                     ]
       Dist. Chandrapur 442 501                                                        ].. Respondents

                                ....
    Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai Advocate for the Petitioner
    Mrs. Neeta Masurkar counsel for Union of India
                                ....

                                             CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
                                                     M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 06, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]:

    1                   Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By


                                                                                                   





  jdk                                                      2                                              4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is

taken up for final hearing.

2 The petitioner was the applicant before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (for short the

"Tribunal"). The petitioner had applied for the post of "Danger

Building Worker (Semi Skilled) [for short "DBW (SS)]. He

passed the written test and trade test on 12.2.2012 and

20.6.2012 respectively. His name was therefore, included in

the select list dated 23.6.2012. On 25.6.2012, the petitioner

received attestation form from Labour Bureau Section of

Ordnance Factory, Chanda. In the attestation form inter alia

there were following columns:

12(i)a) Have you ever been arrested ? Yes / No✔

b) Have you ever been prosecuted ? Yes / No✔

c) Have you ever been kept under detention ? Yes / No✔

d) Have you ever been bound down ? Yes / No✔

e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of Law ? Yes / No✔

f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any Yes / No✔ offence ?

g) Have you been debarred from any examination or Yes / No✔ rusticated by any University or any other Educational / Institution ?

h) Have you ever been debarred / disqualified by any Public Yes / No✔ Service Commission from appearing at its examination / selection ?

jdk 3 4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

i) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at Yes / No✔ the time of filling up this Attestation Form ?

j) Is any case pending against you in any University or any Yes / No✔ other Educational Authority / Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation Form ?

(ii) If any answer to any of the above mentioned questions is 'Yes' give full particulars of the case / arrest / detention / fined conviction / sentence punishment etc. and / or the nature of the case pending in the Court / University / Educational Authority etc. at the time of filling - up this Attestation Form. -N.A."

3 The petitioner filled in "No" in all columns. Column

Nos. 12(i), (a), (b) and (i) are relevant in the present case. The

petitioner submitted the said form on 26.6.2012 after filling it

as above.

4 The above columns were the columns where the

petitioner had to give details about his antecedents if any.

Since there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner,

at the time of filing the attestation form and as there was

suppression of facts which were on vital and material aspects

relating to the petitioner being involved in a criminal case, the

selection of the petitioner for the post of DBW (SS) was

canceled by order dated 9.4.2013. Being aggrieved thereby,

the petitioner preferred Original Application No. 244 of 2013

jdk 4 4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

before the Tribunal. By order dated 7.8.2014, the said Original

Application came to be dismissed, hence, this petition.

5 It is an admitted fact that an FIR was lodged against

the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC. In the said case, the charge-sheet was filed

against the petitioner and his family members before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 24.6.2012 i.e. two days

before the petitioner submitted his Attestation Form. The said

case was numbered as Criminal Case No. 77 of 2010 (State Vs.

Murlidhar Shamkule) and it was pending before the learned

Judicial Magistrate F.C. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur when the

attestation form was submitted.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the Attestation Form was filled-in hurriedly and hence, these

mistakes were caused in filling the Attestation Form. However,

it is not denied that the aforesaid columns were filled-in in the

negative i.e. "No". We do not find any substance in the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the columns

were filled-in by mistake. The petitioner could not have filled in

jdk 5 4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

three columns by mistake. It was clearly a case of suppression

of facts and the facts which were suppressed were vital and

material facts relating to the petitioner being involved in a

criminal case, hence, the selection of the petitioner for the post

of DBW (SS) was canceled by order dated 9.4.2013. It is not

possible to hold that the petitioner would have made a mistake

in filling three columns incorrectly. We are therefore, not

inclined to agree with the stand taken by the petitioner.

7 The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to

contend that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case,

which aspect was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

As far as this contention is concerned, it is an admitted fact

that the petitioner was acquitted much later on and on the

date of filling in the attestation form, the criminal case was

very much pending against the petitioner. Thus, we find no

merit in this contention.

8 The Tribunal has taken two aspects into consideration

for dismissing the Original Application, one is suppression of

material facts i.e. pendency of a criminal case and the second

jdk 6 4.cwp.8979.16.j.doc

being that the petitioner had tampered with some documents

relating to the criminal case. However, in our opinion, the first

ground i.e. suppression of facts in the Attestation Form itself is

serious enough to warrant dismissal of the Original Application,

hence, it is not necessary to go into the other aspects.

9 Looking to the facts of this case, we do not think that

this is a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction, hence, writ petition

is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[ M.S.KARNIK, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

kandarkar