Shukhvinder Singh vs Regional Director & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 597 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 1977/2000

                    Judgment delivered on: February 19, 2009

Sukhvinder Singh                          ..... Petitioner

                            Through:  Mr. S.N. Kalra, Advocate with
                             Ms. Meenu Kamboj, Advocate for petitioner.

                            versus

Regional Director & Ors.                       ..... Respondents

              Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for respondent.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?                                      Yes

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                                   Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?                                                       Yes


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

*

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner seeks restoration of his service on

the post of Assistant Mechanic. Petitioner also seeks directions

against the respondent to produce his original service records and

the original record of show cause notice/memo issued and the

subsequent proceeding, if any, conducted by the respondent against

the petitioner for passing the impugned order dated 1.2.2000.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present

petition are as under:-

The petitioner was working with Airport Authority of India,

Safdarjung Airport New Delhi and was appointed as Assistant

Mechanic after clearing the departmental exams on 14.6.1999 and

since then he had been working as such. In the beginning, the

petitioner got this job on compassionate ground as his late father was

working with the respondent authority and after his death he was

duly considered for the job on the basis of the application moved by

his mother on compassionate ground. On 30.5.1996 he was offered a

job of Assistant Mechanic on contract basis under the Employment

Assistance Scheme on consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- by Dy. Director

of Equipment vide letter No. EST-37/96/293-95 and along with the

same terms and conditions were also supplied to him. As per the

terms and conditions of the letter of offer, he was subjected to

medical and police verification which was duly done as per

Government norms and finally on 18.7.1996 an acceptance letter was

issued to him for joining his duty within fifteen days. In response to

the same, on 26.7.1996 he joined his duty as Assistant Mechanic at

Electrical and Mechanical Workshop Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi

for a period of six months on contract basis and this period was

extended and reviewed by the respondent after getting internal

opinion. During this period of contract service of the petitioner,

certain vacancies of Assistant Mechanic arose which were to be filled

up by the Departmental Candidates of Group D category of the

respondent authority and the petitioner competed for the said post on

15.9.1998 along with other departmental candidates and was

successful in the same. On 21.4.1999 he was called for practical

test/interview along with other candidates. On 14.6.1999 he along

with others was appointed to the post of Assistant Mechanic and

was directed to undergo training for a period of six weeks. Vide

letter dated 25.10.1999 the petitioner was again subjected to medical

report from Medical Incharge Medical Centre, Airport Authority of

India, INA Colony, New Delhi. In the meanwhile, on 10.2.2000 all of

a sudden the petitioner received a letter of termination which as per

him was completely unconstitutional, illegal, malafide, biased and is

without application of mind. Aggrieved by the said act of the

respondent authority the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Mr. S.N. Kalra, counsel appearing for the petitioner states

that the respondent intentionally did not produce the report regarding

police verification made with regard to the character and antecedents

of the petitioner in the year 1996. Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the respondent has deliberately not considered the

previous record of the petitioner which would have clearly shown that

the antecedents of the petitioner were completely clean. Counsel

further submits that the order passed by the respondent is in violation

of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel also

submits that the principles of natural justice were violated by the

respondent as no inquiry was held against the petitioner before taking

the said decision of terminating the petitioner from his service.

Counsel also submits that the petitioner was given appointment on

compassionate basis and he was not found involved in any case of

moral turpitude and the case in which an FIR was registered against

him was relating to some fight with a neighbor which was later on

compromised.

4. Refuting the said submissions Ms. Anjana Gosain counsel

for Respondent No.1 states that on the expiry of Sh. Jaswant Singh,

father of the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for the post of

Assistant Mechanic on compassionate grounds and considering his

request he was appointed as Assistant Mechanic on contract basis

under the Employment Assistant Scheme on compassionate grounds

on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs.1500/- per month for a

period of six months and was posted at Electrical and Mechanical

Workshop Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. On the expiry of six

months further extension continued which, remained till he was

offered the regular appointment against a regular post. The

petitioner was permitted to appear in the test and later on called for

practical test/interview for the post of Assistant Mechanic along with

other Group D departmental employees and based on his interview he

was selected for the post of Assistant Mechanic and an appointment

letter dated 14.06.1999 was issued in his favour. Subsequently, the

terms and conditions of the appointment were also issued to the

petitioner on 21.6.1999 with the instructions to the concerned

General Manager that the petitioner be taken on duty on completion

of all the formalities viz. medical fitness and verification of character

and antecedents. Pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner was

supposed to submit an attestation form and in column 12 thereof the

petitioner was required to give certain details with regard to his

character and past antecedents. Counsel further submits that in the

said column the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of his

involvement in a criminal case and the respondent came to know

about this fact only through the Office of Deputy Commissioner of

Police after the same was sent for verification of the information given

by the petitioner with regard to his character and antecedents and in

the information sent by the DCP it was disclosed that as per the

record of Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi he was found

involved in FIR No. 279 dated 30.8.1992 u/S 325/34 IPC. It was also

informed that the said case was pending trial in the court of Sh. Vinod

Kumar Sharma, M.M. Patiala House, New Delhi and the next date of

hearing fixed in the case was 16.2.2000. Based on the said

concealment of facts by the petitioner, the respondent passed the said

order dated 1.2.2000 removing the petitioner from service. Ms.

Anjana Ghosh states that the petitioner was expected to truthfully

give the information as was sought by the employer and since the said

information was deliberately suppressed by the petitioner, therefore,

the order passed by the respondent cannot be termed to be either

illegal or unjustified.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. Indisputably, the petitioner was offered the regular

appointment of Assistant Mechanic and he was matriculate. The

petitioner was required to fill the attestation form which contained a

„warning‟ that furnishing of false information or suppressing of any

factual information in the Attestation form would be a disqualification,

and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the

Government. The said warning given in the form is referred as under:-

"WARNING" The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under this Government.

If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated in immediately to the authorities to when the attestation from has been sent early, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.

If the fact that false information has been furnished or that thereto has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person his service would be liable to be terminated."

7. It was not expected of any employee not to give the

correct information as was asked by the employer in column No12.

There are various columns dealing with the questions with regard to

the past antecedents of a person. In all these columns, the petitioner

has not truly stated his past antecedents. It is only when the facts

were got ascertained by the respondent from the concerned Deputy

Commissioner of the area it could be known that the petitioner was

involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. It is thus

admitted case that the petitioner suppressed the said fact from his

employer as was sought in the attestation form filled by the petitioner

on 27.10.1999. He also did not disclose that the next date fixed

before the criminal court was 16.2.2000. The position could have

been different, had the petitioner timely realized his mistake and

later on submitted the correct facts before the authority. But that is

not the case here. No sympathy can be shown to a person especially

the person who is seeking an employment based on falsehood. He

was supposed to disclose his past antecedents correctly more

particularly when due warning was given to such an employee but still

the petitioner had the audacity to give incorrect information. It is no

more res integra that the High Court while exercising power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ample powers to redress

the miscarriage of justice whenever the orders of the Executive under

challenge are wholly arbitrary, illegal, perverse, irrational or

improper. The wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are

not intended to be used for the purpose of perpetrating illegalities,

irregularities or improprieties or for cutting the whole Constitutional

scheme of public employment. A party that seeks equity, must come

to the court with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false

claim, cannot claim equity nor the court would be justified to exercise

equity jurisdiction in favour of such a party. In this regard, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. (2007) 10

SCC 635 observed as under:-

It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinise the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority.

8. No indulgence can be shown to such a petitioner while

exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Dismissed.

February 19, 2009                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
pkv