Saroj Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha &Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 388 Ori

Orissa High Court

Saroj Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha &Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                                    Signature Not Verified
                                                                    Digitally Signed
                                                                    Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                    Reason: Authentication
                                                                    Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                    Date: 29-May-2025 16:37:04




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.F.R.

                                  RVWPET No. 221 of 2024

           (An application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and
           151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908).

           Saroj Kumar Das                            ....                Petitioner(s)
                                           -versus-

           State of Odisha &Ors.                      ....        Opposite Party (s)

         Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

           For Petitioner(s)           :               Mr.Rabinarayan Mishra, Adv.



           For Opposite Party (s)      :                     Mr.Sonak Mishra, ASC


                     CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                          DATE OF HEARING: -07.04.2025
                         DATE OF JUDGMENT: -09.05.2025
         Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner in the present review petition seeks review of the

judgment dated 24.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No.18085/2019, whereby the

Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 18085/2019, the Petitioner had sought the quashing of

the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela,

and a direction for reinstatement to his former position as Assistant

Driver, with all consequential service and financial benefits.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

3. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(i) The Petitioner, in response to an advertisement issued in 2013 for the

recruitment of drivers, applied and participated in the selection

process. At the time of application, the Petitioner possessed a valid

driving license issued on 29.12.2009, thus fulfilling the eligibility

criteria for the post of Driver. The Petitioner successfully passed the

physical test conducted on 25.07.2013 and was subsequently allowed

to sit for the written test held in August 2013.

(ii) Due to ongoing litigation, the declaration of results was delayed. The

final result was published on 19/20 November 2013, with the list of

selected candidates, including the Petitioner, being affixed on the

Notice Board at P.M.T. Buxibazar, Cuttack. The Petitioner's name

appeared in the select list, and he was assigned his posting to 1stSSBN,

Sundargarh, with the headquarters at Commandant, Sambalpur.

(iii) Upon selection, the Petitioner reported to the Commandant,

Sambalpur, and was directed to join the Reserve Office, Sundargarh.

The Petitioner reported for duty on 21.11.2013, and his joining letter

was formally accepted on 29.11.2013, after verification of documents

and re-measurement of his height, weight, and chest.

(iv) Following the completion of the physical measurements, the Petitioner

and other candidates were required to fill and sign a declaration form,

which the Petitioner understood to pertain to the absence of any

criminal convictions. The Petitioner duly signed the form and

commenced his duties thereafter.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(v) While performing his duties, the Petitioner was removed from service

by the Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh, through an order dated

14.06.2014, citing concealment of prior criminal involvement. This

order was communicated to the Petitioner through letter No. 1296

dated 15.06.2014 and Memo No. 13166 dated 24.06.2014.

(vi) Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the State Administrative

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, by filing O.A. No. 1707 of 2019, which was

disposed of on 18.05.2019, directing the DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela,

to adjudicate the Petitioner's claim on merits, as per applicable rules,

within two months. The Petitioner accordingly approached the DIG,

who, by order dated 29.07.2019, rejected the Petitioner's appeal.

(vii) Aggrieved by the removal order dated 14.06.2014 and the appellate

order dated 29.07.2019, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 18085/2019

before this Court.

(viii) This Court, after considering the matter, found that the Police Manual

Rules categorically require candidates to disclose any involvement in

criminal cases at the time of submitting the Verification Roll. As the

Petitioner failed to disclose such information, the Court held that the

Petitioner was liable for removal from service.

(ix) In light of these findings, this Court concluded that there was no merit

in the Petitioner's claim and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition

on 24.07.2024.

(x) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the Petitioner has now

filed the present review petition, seeking reconsideration of the

judgment.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner submitted that Gondia P.S. Case No.129 was registered

on 22.09.2013, during the period when he was undergoing the

recruitment process. By that time, he had already appeared for the

physical test on 25.07.2013 and the written examination in August

2013. He was selected on 20.11.2013 and submitted his joining report

on 29.11.2013. The Verification Roll was submitted on 05.12.2013. The

Petitioner had no knowledge of the registration or pendency of the

said FIR at the time of submitting the Verification Roll and, therefore,

there was no question of deliberate suppression.

(ii) The Petitioner further submitted that Gondia P.S. Case No.204 dated

20.11.2008, which had been previously registered against him, had

ended in acquittal on 29.08.2012, well before the recruitment process

commenced. Hence, it could not be treated as an adverse factor or

ground for disqualification.

(iii) The Petitioner submitted that the FIR in Gondia P.S. Case No.129/2013

does not mention his name, and as such, his statement in the writ

petition that he had no knowledge or involvement in the incident was

truthful. The claim of the Opposite Parties regarding a search based on

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements does not establish that the Petitioner

was ever served with any notice or had any knowledge prior to

submitting the Verification Roll.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iv) The Petitioner submitted that the adverse remarks in the impugned

removal order, wherein the IIC of Gondia P.S. opined that the

Petitioner was not a man of good moral character, are based solely on

unverified and pending cases, one of which had already ended in

acquittal. This opinion is unsupported by any substantive material and

is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

(v) The Petitioner submitted that the removal order is solely based on the

alleged non-disclosure in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Verification Roll.

However, by 05.12.2013, no notice under Section 41-A CrPC,

summons, or any form of official communication had been served on

him in relation to the FIR dated 22.09.2013. Therefore, there was no

suppression on his part.

(vi) The Petitioner submitted that PMR Rule 673(c) requires that adverse

character reports be based on substantive findings and application of

mind. The report in his case was issued mechanically, merely citing

the pendency of criminal cases without analyzing their nature or

status. This defeats the objective of the Rule.

(vii) The Petitioner submitted that he is the sole earning member of his

family and was selected purely on merit. He has faced prolonged

litigation since 2014, leading to financial and emotional hardship. His

removal from service was arbitrary and unjust, solely due to erroneous

and baseless character reporting.

(viii) The Petitioner submitted that the FIR in Gondia P.S. Case No.129/2013

was ultimately quashed by this Court, vindicating his stand and

underscoring the unjust basis of the removal order.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(ix) The Petitioner submitted that the impugned order of removal deserves

to be quashed, and he is entitled to reinstatement with all

consequential service and financial benefits.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

5. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is not correct that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the pendency

of Gondia P.S. Case No. 129 dated 22.09.2013, registered under

Sections 341, 342, 294, 323, 366, 376, 506, and 34 of the IPC. The said

criminal case was registered on 22.09.2013, whereas the Petitioner

submitted the Verification Roll on 05.12.2013, nearly three months

later. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that the Petitioner was

unaware of the pendency of the case at the relevant time.

(ii) The Case Diary numbered 1b dated 22.09.2013 reflects that the

Investigating Officer conducted a search for the accused, Silu alias

Saroj Kumar Das, and instructed the local Gram RakhiHaringapatra to

provide information regarding his whereabouts. The 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of DhumaMallick recorded on 23.09.2013 corroborates the

involvement of the Petitioner. Additionally, further searches for the

accused are documented in Case Diaries numbered IIa dated

23.09.2013, III dated 07.10.2013, and IV dated 11.11.2013. These records

indicate that the petitioner was well aware of the criminal case

initiated against him.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iii) After joining on 05.12.2013, the Petitioner filled out the Verification

Roll, answering "NO" to questions regarding criminal involvement, as

per Rule-673 of the Police Manual. While the Petitioner's name was

not listed in the Gondia PS Case No. 129 FIR, subsequent investigation

revealed his involvement in the case under sections 341, 342, 294, 323,

366, 376, 506, and 34 IPC. Realizing the potential impact on his police

appointment, the Petitioner amicably resolved the matter with the

parties involved and filed CRLMC No. 2993/2014 before this Court.

The Court, in its order dated 15.07.2014, acknowledged the settlement

and quashed all criminal proceedings, stating that continuation of the

case would serve no purpose due to the minimal chances of

conviction.

(iv) The S.P., Sundargarh, acted with due application of mind in removing

the Petitioner from service due to his involvement in two criminal

cases. Additionally, the report from the local IIC of Gondia PS,

Dhenkanal District, stated that the Petitioner was not of good moral

character.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

7. It is well-settled that an applicant who withholds material information

or furnishes false declarations cannot claim an indefeasible right to

public employment. The employer must assess all relevant facts,

circumstances, and the applicable service rules before making a

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

decision. However, such a decision must be made in an objective

manner, ensuring that the employee's rights are not unduly

compromised without a fair and transparent process.

8. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India1,the Supreme Court laid down broad

guidelines to be taken into account by the appointing authority in

matters involving allegations of suppression of material information,

and observed as under:

"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 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,

(2016) 8 SCC 471.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

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.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

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 suppressioveri or suggestiofalsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

9. The Supreme Court specifically held in the aforementioned case that

before a candidate can be held guilty of suppression of facts, it is

necessary that the candidate had knowledge of the fact in question.

10. Therefore, without such knowledge, it cannot be presumed that the

candidate had the intention to conceal material information. The mere

absence of disclosure of a fact does not automatically imply fraudulent

or intentional suppression if the candidate was unaware of its

existence at the relevant time.

11. Turning to the specific factual matrix of the case at hand, it is

undisputed that the Gondia P.S. Case No. 129 of 2013 was registered

after the Petitioner had participated in the recruitment process, but

before he submitted the Verification Roll.

12. The Petitioner has consistently maintained that he was unaware of the

registration of the FIR at the time of submission of the Verification

Roll. Notably, he has contended that FIR did not name him as an

accused, and no notice or summons was issued to him prior to the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

submission of the Verification Roll on 05.12.2013. Furthermore, it is

imperative to note that the said criminal case has since been quashed.

13. With regard to Gondia P.S. Case No. 204 of 2008, it is pertinent to note

that the Petitioner was acquitted on 29.08.2012, well before the

initiation of the recruitment process. The Verification Roll, duly

completed by the Petitioner, specifically sought disclosure of any

pending criminal cases, to which he responded in the negative by

stating "NO."

14. A review of the records reveals that there is no indication that the

Petitioner was served with formal summons or notice in relation to the

Gondia P.S. Case No. 129 of 2013. Furthermore, there is no information

to suggest that the Petitioner was aware of the pendency of any such

proceedings at the relevant time. In the absence of such knowledge

and without formal notice, the allegation of suppression lacks merit.

Consequently, the charge of concealment is legally unsustainable and

cannot be upheld.

15. In view of the foregoing, coupled with the quashing of Gondia P.S.

Case No. 129 of 2013, which formed the basis for the Petitioner's

removal from service, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

removal order is untenable and must be set aside.

16. While it is within the employer's discretion to assess the fitness of

candidates for public employment, such discretion must be exercised

judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles, rather

than in an arbitrary manner. The Petitioner's failure to disclose the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

criminal case cannot be regarded as deliberate concealment, given his

lack of knowledge of the case's existence.

17. This Court, therefore, directs the Deputy Inspector General of Police,

Western Range, Rourkela, to reconsider the Petitioner's case in

accordance with applicable legal principles and in light of the relevant

facts, and to issue an appropriate order of appointment.

18. In doing so, the Deputy Inspector General is instructed to take into

account all pertinent factors, including the fact that the Petitioner has

been acquitted in the criminal case. The Petitioner's lack of formal

notice or summons, which precluded his knowledge of the

proceedings, must also be considered. Furthermore, the prolonged

duration of the litigation and the Petitioner's financial obligations

should be factored into the decision-making process to ensure a fair

and just outcome.

19. Accordingly, this RVWPET is disposed of.

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the9th May, 2025/