Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parvat Singh vs Makhanlal Chaturvedi National ... on 30 June, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No.17987 of 2016
Between:-
PARVAT SINGH S/O SHRI GHUDE LAL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O E-8, 22
LAXMAN NAGAR, DANAPANI ROAD,
BHOPAL, (M.P.).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
MAKHANLAL CHATURVEDI NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF JOURNALISM AND
COMMUNICATION THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR, B-38 VIKAS BHAWAN, PRESS
COMPLEX, M.P. NAGAR, ZONE-1, BHOPAL
(M.P.).
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAHUL DESHMUKH - ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice MANINDER S. BHATTI, passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition while praying for
following relief :
(1) A writ, order, or direction of
appropriate nature may be issued by
quashing the impugned order dated
5.12.2015 (Annx.P-4) and 14.10.2016
(Annx.P-10) and direct the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner on his post with all
the back wages in the interest of justice.
(2) Any other relief deemed fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3) Cost be awarded to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant
Grade-III vide order dated 30.04.2015. At the time of initial
appointment, the petitioner was required to submit an attestation form.
The same contained a declaration by the petitioner to disclose the
factum of pendency/ disposal of the criminal case against him. Later-
on, it was found that a case under Section 107, 116 of Cr.P.C vide
Istgasa No.41/2013 was pending which was suppressed by the
petitioner in the attestation form, therefore, the services of the
petitioner were terminated vide order dated 05.12.2015 (Annxure P-4).
Assailing the order dated 05.12.2015, petitioner filed a petition before
this Court vide W.P.No.13888/2016. The said writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide
petitioner's representation vide order dated 30.08.2016. In pursuance
of the order of this Court in W.P.13888/2016, the representation of the
petitioner was considered and decided vide order dated 13/14-10-2016
contained in Annexure P-10. Thus, assailing the order contained in
Annexure P-4 dated 05.12.2015 and Annexure P-10 dated 14.10.2016,
the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. The petitioner submits that the order impugned, on its face, has
been issued in high-handed manner, inasmuch as, the respondents
have failed to appreciate that no offence was registered against the
petitioner because the provisions of Section 107,116 of Cr.P.C are
preventive measures and, therefore, do not attract any penal
consequences, therefore, that case was not falling within the ambit of
Clause-12 of the attestation form. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that since the ground on which petitioner has been terminated goes
contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India and others-(2016)8 SCC 471,
Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Civil
Appeal No.10571-2018 as well as Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. The
Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F.
Northern Railway, New Delhi and others- (Civil Appeal No.1964-
2022), therefore, he submits that the order impugned should be set
aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is
a case where the nature of offence is not to be seen, in fact, the
conduct of the petitioner was important, inasmuch as, the petitioner in
all fairness was responsible to disclose the factum as regards pendency
of the case against him, therefore, it was the case of suppression and
since there was incorrect disclosure in attestation form, therefore, the
authority in its own wisdom rightly passed the order of termination
which requires no interference. The further submission of the counsel
is that the suitability of a candidate is the prerogative of the employer
and the same is not the subject of judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel
while placing reliance on Virender Jatav Vs. State of M.P. and
others (2020) 4 MPLJ 601 and Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of
M.P. and another- (2018) 2 MPLJ 419 submits that it is only the
eligibility criteria that can be gone into in exercise of powers of
judicial review. So far as suitability is concerned, the same falls within
the discretion/ wisdom of the employer. He, therefore, submits that no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record, it is to be seen that whether there is consideration of nature of
offence in the impugned order. Recently the Apex Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.3574/2022
discussed the earlier case law including Avtar Singh (supra) and in
para 13 held as under :
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid
down by this Court is that by mere suppression of
material/false information regardless of the fact
whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been
recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from service
just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect
of suppression of material/false information
involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the
employer to consider all the relevant facts and
circumstances available as to antecedents and
keeping in view the objective criteria and the
relevant service rules into consideration, while
taking appropriate decision regarding
continuance/suitability of the employee into
service. What being noticed by this Court is that
mere suppression of material/false information in a
given case does not mean that the employer can
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from
service."
A perusal of the judgment shows that merely upon suppression,
the services of an employee cannot be dispensed with a stroke of a
pen. Thus, the emphasis has been laid down by the Apex Court that
the employer is required to take into consideration all relevant facts
including the nature of offence despite there being suppression.
5. In the considered view of this court, the allegation on which the
services of the petitioner were terminated needs to be reconsidered,
inasmuch as, the case registered under Section 107,116 of Cr.P.C was
only in the nature of preventive measure and no penal consequences
are provided in the aforesaid statutory provision, therefore, the case of
the petitioner is required to be considered on the anvil of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar (supra).
6. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 5.12.15
(Annx.P-4) and 14.10.2016 (Annex.P-10) are quashed. The matter is
remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner
in the light of the law laid down in the matter of Pawan Kumar
(supra) within a period of 90 days from the date of production of copy
of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
MKL
MANOJ Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
KUMAR
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=ad36bd0a68daf2238756985812b1252
6281ad9d6703a41595304a2e8195ef028,
pseudonym=3050F1D083ED3727ADE7D79B55E
8D2D9ECCF44E5,
LALWANI
serialNumber=8C3E535065CECE45851C1EF8F4
C941F5F7BBEFDAF1B1EDF887C4DEDED3DA0A
A3, cn=MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
Date: 2022.07.02 14:03:40 +05'30'
