Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Ahirwar vs District And Sessions Judge on 23 September, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1
WP. No.11626/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Case No. WP. No.11626/2016
Parties Name Devendra Ahirwar
Vs.
District & Sessions Judge,
Ashok Nagar
Date of Order 23/09/2021
Bench Constituted Division Bench:
Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Justice Virender Singh
Judgment delivered by Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for No
reporting
Name of counsels for Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, Advocate
parties for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Singh,
Advocate for the respondent.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph -
numbers
ORDER
23.09.2021
Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 2.5.2016, whereby the petitioner's service as Peon has
been terminated on the ground that he had not disclosed about
the registration or disposal of the criminal case in which he was
imposed the fine of Rs.1,000/- in the affidavit dated 22.5.2015.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed
as Chowkidar in the contingency establishment of the
respondent vide order dated 13.2.2012. In pursuance to the
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee,
vide order dated 17.1.2015 the petitioner was appointed as Peon.
The appointment was initially on probation for two years. At the
time of appointment, the petitioner was required to fill up the
WP. No.11626/2016
verification form as also furnish the affidavit. The show cause
notice dated 2.3.2016 was issued to the petitioner stating that in
Column 12(a) of the Character Verification Form, the petitioner
had supressed the information relating to the criminal case. The
petitioner had filed reply to the show cause notice, thereafter, by
impugned order dated 2.5.2016 his services have been
terminated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was juvenile when the criminal case was registered
and tried against him by the Juvenile Justice Board in which the
fine was imposed, therefore, in terms of Section 19 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the
petitioner had not incurred any disqualification and the same
cannot be furnished as a ground for terminating the petitioner.
He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. He has submitted that the
relevant criteria laid down therein has not been followed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the
impugned order and has submitted that there is clear
suppression on the part of the petitioner as he had not disclosed
in coloumn 12(a) or in the affidavit the fact that the criminal
case was registered against the petitioner in which the fine was
imposed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
the perusal of the record, it is noticed that crime No.6/2010 for
offence under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC was registered
against the petitioner and the petitioner was tried before the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sagar in case
No.10/2010 and by the judgment dated 16.12.2011, fine of
WP. No.11626/2016
Rs.1,000/- was imposed. This fact has not been disclosed by the
petitioner in coloumn 12(a) of the Character Verification Form
or in the affidavit dated 2.5.2011. It is also noticed that the
impugned order dated 2.5.2016 does not reflect that the
respondent has considered the nature of the criminal case which
was registered against the petitioner or the effect of Section 19
of the Act of 2000.
6. The Supreme court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra)
has laid down the following guidelines to be followed by the
appointing/competent authority in such matters where there was
suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case:-
"38.4 In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before
filling of the application/verification form and such fact
later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourses appropriate to the case may be
adopted;
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if
disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in
case which is not trivial in nature, employer may
cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in
a case involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is
not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may
take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the
employee."
WP. No.11626/2016
7. The impugned order does not reflect that the competent
authority has taken into account the aforesaid relevant
considerations which have been laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. No other material has been placed on record by
the respondent to show compliance of the aforesaid directions.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated
2.5.2016 passed by the respondent cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to reconsider the
case of the petitioner in accordance with law having due regard
to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra) and also the submission of counsel for the
petitioner based upon the effect of Section 19 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
8. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondent
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
9. Since the termination of the petitioner has been set aside
on technical ground and the respondent has been directed to
reconsider the issue within a time bound period, therefore, at
this stage, no direction is being issued for reinstatement of the
petitioner and the same will depend upon the final outcome of
the fresh exercise which is directed above.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp.
Digitally signed by
PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2021.09.23
15:06:06 +05'30'
