Digam @ Digambar Das vs State Of Orissa And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12364 Ori

                                     1



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       W.P.(C) No. 17432 of 2019

Digam @ Digambar Das         .....                              Petitioner
                                     Ms.S. Mohanty, Advocate on behalf of
                                             Ms. D. Mahapatra, Advocate
                             Vs.
State of Orissa and others   .....                           Opposite parties
                                                      Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA

             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

02.12.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

03.

2. As Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner is ill, a request is made on her behalf by Ms. S. Mohanty, learned counsel, for adjournment of the case.

3. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate raised objection for adjournment of the matter indicating therein that a specific stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has given false declaration at the time of submission of his application form on 24.10.2011, at point No.21 indicating therein that he has not been involved in any criminal case. The order impugned in Annexure-5 clearly indicates that on verification of the character antecedent report issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nuapada, vide his letter dated 12.01.2013, it has been indicated that the petitioner has been involved in Khariar P.S. Case No. 113 dated 23.07.2011 under Section 341, 323, 294, 506 and 34 IPC. It has also been admitted by him in his

representations under Annexure-4 series that he has been acquitted in the G.R. Case No. 311 of 2011 vide order dated 06.01.2014 under Annexure-3. According to Mr. Mishra, by the time he submitted the application form on 24.10.2011, there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has given a false declaration that he has not been involved in criminal case. A reference has been made to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Jainendra V. State of U.P. Tr. Principal Secretary, Home and others where the apex Court has laid down the guidelines and point nos. (iv) and (v) thereof indicates that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his service. According to Mr. Mishra, if the petitioner has given false declaration, the action taken by the authorities in Annexure-5 is well justified.

4. However, since adjournment is sought for on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, call this matter next week.

                                        (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
Arun                                         JUDGE