Chattisgarh High Court

Rajesh Kumar Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025

                                           1




         Digitally
 REKHA signed by
 SINGH REKHA
                                                         2025:CGHC:20673
       SINGH




                                                            NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                              WPS No. 7634 of 2018


1 - Rajesh Kumar Chandra S/o Shri Ramlal Chandra, Aged About 38
Years Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sonadulla, Development Block-
Maalkharoda, R/o Village Katari, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                        versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh

2 - The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate and Mr. P.N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following

relief(s):-

"10.1. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents concerned to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the order dated 14.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1 confirming the orders dated 5.12.2011 & 8.2.2013 (Annexure P-7 & P-8) being illegal, arbitrary and consequent thereto restore the position of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary (Karmi) with all benefits and also compensation for illegal and arbitrary removal from service and facing mental trauma, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in nature in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3. Cost of the proceedings.

10.4. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court."

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of

Panchayat Karmi at Gram Panchayat Katari, Janpad Panchayat

Maalkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa. He would further submit

that the petitioner was declared Secretary according to the

provisions of Section 69(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj

Adhiniyam, 1993 vide order dated 03.10.2007. He would contend

that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the commission

of offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 B of IPC and

Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989. He would also submit that the petitioner was acquitted

from charges of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but was

convicted by the learned Trial Court for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 294 & 506-B of the IPC and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.500/-. He

would argue that a Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2006 was

preferred before the High Court and the same has been allowed

vide judgment dated 18.06.2024. Mr. Sharma would further argue

that as the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the

learned Trial Court and this fact was not disclosed in the

application vide Annexure P/2, therefore, a show cause notice

was issued to the petitioner to explain his conduct. He would also

argue that an inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was

removed from services by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila

Panchayat, Janjgir-Champa vide order dated 05.12.2011. He

would state that the said order was affirmed by the

Commissioner vide order dated 08.02.2013. He would also

contend that a revision was preferred before the Secretary, State

of Chhattisgarh Panchayat and Rural Development Department

and it was also dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2018. Mr.

Sharma would further state that in the application submitted by

the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary, there

was no column to disclose the pending criminal case or arrest.

He would also state that there were trivial allegations against the

petitioner and there was no allegation with regard to moral

turpitude. He would further contend that the employer while

inflicting the penalty of removal from services ought to have

considered these facts. In support of his contentions, he has

placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and

others, 2016 (8) SCC 471.

3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents

would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. They would

submit that the petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of the

criminal case while submitting the application form for the post of

Panchayat Karmi/Secretary. They would further submit that the

suppression of material facts led to dismissal from services and

there is a concurrent finding recorded by the authorities. They

would also submit that the present petition deserves to be

dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the documents placed on the record.

5. Annexure P/2, the application form submitted by the petitioner for

the post of Panchayat Karmi/Secretary would show that there is

no specific column to disclose the pending criminal case or

arrest. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to disclose the

pendency of a criminal case by submitting an additional affidavit.

6. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Trial Court for the

commission of an offence punishable under Sections 294 and

506-B of the IPC. In appeal, he has been acquitted by the High

Court. The petitioner has been removed from services only on

the ground that he suppressed material facts.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in

the matter of Avtar Singh (supra) summarized the conclusion in

para 30 as under:-

"30.The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service."

8. It is thus settled law that though a person who has suppressed

the material information cannot claim the unfettered right to

appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be

dealt with arbitrarily and the exercise of power has to be in a

reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts

of cases. The chance of reformation has to be afforded to young

offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot

be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the

factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power

for canceling candidature or discharging an employee from

service.

9. Now coming to the facts of the present case in the light of the