Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chakradhar Nanasaheb Kale vs Central Bank Of India Through Human ... on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 11976 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
CHAKRADHAR NANASAHEB KALE S/O KALE
NANASAHEB NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT MANAGER CENTRAL BANK
OF INDIA, MHOW NEEMUCH ROAD, DALODA BRANCH,
DISTRICT -MANDSAUR (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINAY KUMAR ZELAWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY
SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION DIVISION
GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL OFFICE:
CHANDER MUKHI, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
2. REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE RATLAM, MHOW NEEMUCH
ROAD, NEAR HOTEL LAVANYA PALACE,
VILLAGE-SALAKHERI, DISTRICT -RATLAM (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the letter dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure-P/6),
whereby respondent / Bank has taken decision to terminate him from service
because of furnishing incomplete information in the Employees Antecedent
Form which was submitted at the time of appointment.
02. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Manager
(Agriculture Finance Officer Specialist) in the Junior Management Grade (Scale-
I) vide appointment order dated 14.09.2018. According to the petitioner, he
disclosed about pendency of criminal case against him and did not furnish any
incorrect information or suppressed any information in Column - 14 & 15 of the
Form, despite that impugned letter has been issued on 23.07.2020 with an
intention to terminate him from service.
03. Vide order dated 27.08.2020, this Court has stayed the termination of
the petitioner.
04. After notice, respondents filed a reply by submitting that the
petitioner has not disclosed complete truth in the Form and simply marked
word 'NO'. He has not disclosed the vital information in the application form
that he remained in the police custody for certain period. In Column - 4, he has
only marked 'YES' and he ought to disclosed the information regarding his
arrest during pendency of the criminal case. It is further submitted that the
charges are serious in nature, for which he is facing trial, therefore, the decision
has rightly been taken.
05. Although impugned communication (Annexure-P/6) has been issued
only to inform the petitioner about termination of his service within one month,
but it appears that before taking such decision, no opportunity of hearing was
given to him. He has not been given any chance to explain his conduct.
06. In view of the above, the matter is remitted back to the respondents
to consider his reply / representation to the letter dated 23.07.2020 and take
decision in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar
Singh v/s Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. In the aforesaid
case, the Apex Court has given the conclusion in paragraph-38 to be followed
before taking any decision in the matter of suppression and disclosure about the
criminal cases at the time of appointment. Paragraphs - 38 & 39 are reproduced
below:-
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as
far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion
thus:
38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service
must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature
for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances
of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the
decision.
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 recourse 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.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot
be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form
regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending
cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may
pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may
not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of
filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would
take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry
would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on
the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form
has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is
relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an
objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases
action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to
a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
39. We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an
appropriate Bench for consideration on merits."
07. In view of the above, Annexure-P/6 be treated as show-cause notice
and the petitioner is directed to submit a detailed reply to the said notice within
one month from today, thereafter, the respondents shall take decision in light of
the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
Till then, the interim order passed by this Court shall remain in operation.
08. Writ Petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
