Meena Kumari @Meenu vs The Medical Suprintendent,Lok ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1049 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP(C) No.2513/2010

%                                                    March 04, 2013


      MEENA KUMARI @MEENU                    ..... Petitioner
              Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash with Ms. Neeraj, Advs.


                          versus


      THE MEDICAL SUPRINTENDENT,LOK NAYAK HOSPITAL
                                               ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana Shukla, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No.2667/2013(application for restoration of interim relief)

This application is disposed of inasmuch as I have heard

counsel for the petitioner on the main writ petition and which is being

disposed of today itself by a judgment.

CM stands disposed of.

WP(C) No.2513/2010

1. The petitioner after selection got employment as a nursing

orderly with the respondent No.1-Hospital. At the time of taking

employment, the petitioner was asked to fill up a form in January, 2009 and

the first four lines of the form specifically stated that "the furnishing of false

information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form

would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for

employment under the Government". The petitioner in reply to specific

questions (a) & (b) of Para 13 of this form replied in the negative. These

questions were as to whether the petitioner was arrested and whether the

petitioner had ever been prosecuted. The fact of the matter is that the

petitioner at the time of filling up the form was an accused in the criminal

case and was being prosecuted in that State case. The petitioner also had

been arrested but was given anticipatory bail. The petitioner by this petition

claims that since the petitioner was thereafter discharged from the criminal

case, the discharge must be considered from the date of submission of form

and therefore the petitioner should not be removed from service. It is also

argued that nothing in the Conduct Rules of the respondent No.1 entitles the

respondent no.1 to remove the petitioner from service.

2. Counsel for the respondent in addition to relying upon the

admitted facts of the petitioner being prosecuted in a State case under

Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, has referred to a document being

the letter dated 23.1.2009 given by the petitioner at the time of taking

employment and which letter reads as under:-

"23.1.2009 To, The Director (Admn.) Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi-02.

Subject: Declaration regarding character and antecedents report.

Sir, With due respect, I MEENA KUMARI working as N/O since 5.1.2009 hereby declare that I have never been detained by law and no FIR has been lodged against me.

I also declare that if anything adverse is found against me during my character and antecedents verification, then the salary that I would have drawn will be returned by me.

Yours faithfully,

MEENA KUMARI D/o SHRI NIWAS MATHUR Posting -Deptt. Canteen"

It is further argued that issue is not of discharge of the

petitioner subsequently or of giving of any corrigendum cum legal notice

dated 13.3.2010, but the issue is of furnishing of false information at the

time of taking employment, and it cannot be disputed that at the time of

taking employment, petitioner had deliberately furnished false information

that she was not prosecuted in any criminal case or that she was not arrested.

3. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the

reason that, not in one but in two documents, one being the attestation form

of January, 2009 and the other being the letter dated 23.1.2009, the

petitioner falsely stated that there was no FIR lodged against her and that she

was never detained under law. As already stated above, the attestation form

begins with the line that if any person is found to have given any false

information, the same would be a ground for removal from service. Further,

the letter dated 23.1.2009 also states that if anything adverse is found against

antecedent verification of the petitioner, then in fact the salary of the

petitioner will be returned by her.

4. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has in fact argued that the

present case is in fact a fit case for criminal prosecution of the petitioner on

account of having furnished false information at the time of seeking

employment, but this is an aspect I need not go into, because if the

respondent No.1 seeks to take any legal action for petitioner furnishing false

declaration it will be open for the respondent No.1 to do so and I need not

comment on the same.

5. One of the issues argued on behalf of the petitioner is that there

is nothing provided in the Conduct Rules for removal of a person who had

furnished false information. To this argument, all that I can say is that there

is no such specific rule required in the Conduct Rules. On the contrary for

the petitioner to succeed she had to show existence of a rule which provides

that a person cannot be removed even if he has furnished false information.

It is not sufficient for the petitioner to generally rely upon the Conduct Rules

to show that in spite of furnishing false information a person's services

could not have been terminated although employment had been obtained on

the basis of furnishing false information and suppressing facts.

6. A resume of the above shows the following:

i) At the time of giving of the attestation form in January, 2009

and the letter dated 23.1.2009, petitioner was in fact being prosecuted in

a criminal case pursuant to an FIR, and in that case, the petitioner had

been granted anticipatory bail after arrest.

ii) The attestation form specifically cautioned each person filling

up the form that furnishing of false information will make the person

giving false information liable to be rendered unfit for employment, and

the petitioner additionally gave a letter dated 23.1.2009 reaffirming the

fact that she had not been detained and no FIR had been lodged against

her.

iii) The present writ petition has been filed concealing the facts

because the petitioner did not file the letter dated 23.1.2009 which is

filed by the respondent No.1 as Annexure R-4 to its counter affidavit.

iv) The petitioner took public employment by wilfully and

deliberately concealing material facts.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the writ

petition which seeks to restrain the respondent No.1 from removing the

petitioner from service, and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 04, 2013 ak