Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankur Chourasia vs M P Poorv Kshetra Vidhut Vitran ... on 21 December, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
W.A. No.1967 of 2019
Ankur Chourasia
-Versus-
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & ors.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
None appears for the parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur, dtd.21.12.2021)
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
The present intra-court appeal has been filed under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the
order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.9808 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
has been dismissed.
2. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 22-02-
2017 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting his representation
preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
3. The facts of the case, succinctly stated, are that the
appellant was appointed vide order dated 24-9-2013 as Testing
Assistant (Trainee). Prior to his appointment, he was required to
disclose his antecedents. He filed the attestation form concealing
his past conviction and mentioned false and incorrect information
about himself. However, on police verification, the declaration
given by the appellant was found to be incorrect. It was found that
the appellant was convicted under Section 34(1)(a) of the M.P.
Excise Act, 1915 by judgement dated 03-5-2012 and inflicted with
fine of Rs.5000/- and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising
of the Court. His service was, therefore, put to an end by order
dated 31-5-2014.
4. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant
by way of W.P. No.12032 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order
dated 13-12-2016, directing the employer to reconsider the case of
the appellant in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Avtar
Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (4) MPLJ 332. Thereafter, the
respondents after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
appellant passed a fresh order.
5. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the
cases which were instituted against the appellant were of trivial
nature of allegations and the offence involved is not of moral
turpitude.
6. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the
appellant has deliberately concealed his past conviction under
Section 34(1)(a) of the M.P. Excise Act and furnished a false
affidavit in this regard.
7. The learned Single Judge has considered that the
conviction of the appellant under Section 34(1)(a) of the M.P. Excise
Act, on the basis of his admission and sentence to imprisonment till
rising of the Court and inflicted with a fine of Rs.5000/- on 03-5-
2012. He was found in possession of 6 kilograms of "Goa" Whisky,
a type of liquor, injurious to health. The appellant while submitting
his verification form has not only deliberately left the column No.12
(about criminal antecedents) blank and concealed about his
conviction, but also filed a false affidavit stating that he has never
been convicted.
8. In this factual backdrop, the learned Single Judge found
that the appellant has deliberately suppressed and concealed his
involvement in a criminal case, in which he was convicted prior to
filling-up of the verification form and furnished a false affidavit.
Therefore, the respondents have not committed any error in
terminating service of the appellant. The view take by the learned
Single Judge is well supported by the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
9. We do not perceive any illegality in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9808 of 2017 dismissing the
same. No any interference is warranted in the present intra-court
appeal. Accordingly, the same being, sans substratum, is dismissed
without any order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Ravi Malimath) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.12.23 13:10:01 +05'30'
