Amit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6196 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amit Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 19 March, 2024

CWP No.6733 of 2023 1
2024:PHHC: 039114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.247 CWP No.6733 of 2023
Date of Decision: 19.03.2024
Amit Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Mehta, DAG, Haryana.
oie 2c 2c 2c

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 09.02.2023/24.02.2023, Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner's service was terminated. A direction has also been sought for granting consequential benefits pursuant thereto.

2. Briefly, facts of the case are, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised, among others, posts of Assistant Professor History, vide advertisement no.1 of 2019 in January 2019. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same; he was duly selected and recommended for appointment by the Commission. The respondents offered him post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre), HES-II, Group-B, in the subject of History vide memo dated 29.01.2020, Annexure P-1. Accepting the offer, he joined on 13.02.2020.

2.1. Later, the respondents issued him a show cause notice, dated 11.11.2021, Annexure P-2, informing that after verification of character and antecedents it has come to notice that he was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.357, dated 24.09.2019 under Section 354(1) (II), 354D, 506,

MANINDER

2024.04.04 18:53 = 509 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar. attest to the accuracy an order judgment.

2024:PHHC: 039114

Therefore, the competent authority was provisionally of the view that being a probationer, his involvement in the criminal case was in contravention of condition 18 of the letter of appointment, and his service was liable to be terminated. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice vide reply dated 14.12.2021, Annexure P-3, informing that the case was lodged after submission of the application for the post in question. The allegations are false and have been levelled out of vengeance, to prevent him from continuing in service.

2.2. Considering the reply, the impugned order dated 09.02.2023, Annexure P-5, was passed, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service with immediate effect on the ground that he did not fulfill the basic terms and conditions of appointment. The order records that his involvement in the aforementioned criminal case was brought to the Department's notice vide report of the District Magistrate concerned. After submitting of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the case, charges also stood framed against him under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar. The offences involved moral turpitude, and rendered him unsuitable for employment in Government service.

2.3. In this background, the instant petition has been filed. During pendency of the petition trial of the criminal case concluded, and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 01.12.2023, Annexure P-10.

3. Learned Senior counsel has contended that the petitioner has been terminated in violation of the terms of appointment. The maximum period of probation provided under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Haryana Education

(College Cadre) Group-B Service Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules') is

MANINDER 2024.04.04 18:53 thre I attest to the accuracy an authenticity of this order/judgment.

e years, which was satisfactorily completed. Accordingly, he stood

2024:PHHC: 039114

confirmed in service, and the impugned order considering him on probation could not have been passed. Secondly, it has been contended that mere registration of the criminal case and his involvement therein cannot be a ground for termination. Law in this regard, has been settled by this Court vide judgment rendered in Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2016(4) SLR 526. Therefore, the impugned order of the termination is

4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that petitioner has been rightly terminated from service for concealing the factum of involvement in the criminal case while filling attestation form for the post in question, dated 20.02.2020. The FIR in question was lodged prior thereto on 24.09.2019, and he was required to disclose the facts in that regard. Non- disclosure of this vital information, which has a bearing on his character, is sufficient to terminate his service. He further contends that petitioner has rightly been considered a probationer since he joined the service on 13.02.2020, and the order of termination was passed on 09.02.2023, i.e., prior to completion of the maximum three years period of probation.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

6. Undisputed facts on record are, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor History after due selection, vide letter of appointment dated 29.01.2020, and he joined service on 13.02.2020. A criminal case bearing FIR No.357, dated 24.09.2019, under Sections 354(I) (II), 354D, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against him. After working on the post for close to three years his service was terminated, vide impugned order dated 09.02.2023, on the ground of involvement in the aforementioned criminal case for the offences which involved moral turpitude rendering him unsuitable for employment.

2024.04.04 18:53 7 It is apparent that the petitioner was terminated from service

2024:PHHC: 039114

before completing three years, which is the maximum period of probation prescribed under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Rules. And no order of confirmation was conveyed to him. Therefore, he was a probationer at the time of termination and was rightly considered so, as contended by the learned State counsel. However, the second contention raised by him that petitioner had concealed vital information regarding involvement in the criminal case while submitting the attestation form dated 20.02.2020, is not sustainable. Column 13 of the attestation form only requires a response to the question, 'Have you ever been convicted by Court of any Offence? If the answer is 'Yes' the full Particulars of the convictions and the sentences, should be given.' The petitioner wrote 'No' against this column since he had not been convicted of any criminal offence till that time; nor thereafter, as the trial against him ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 24.09.2019. There was no requirement for him to disclose involvement in any criminal case. Therefore, he cannot be accused of non-disclosure of any information. Under similar circumstances, this Court in Amandeep Singh case (supra) held as under:

9. Before parting with the judgment, the Courts can not lose sight of the fact that there is a growing tendency in this part of the country where many times innocent people are roped in criminal cases. Therefore, unless and until a person is convicted of any offence and has earned a disqualification, his services could not be terminated on the ground that at the time of joining service, a criminal case was pending against him, in which, the trial is going on and that the same was not disclosed, though in the form, the only query was put whether he has been convicted and sentenced in a criminal case and whether he was arrested in

some criminal case?

2024:PHHC: 039114

8. Besides, the order of termination was passed on the premise that the alleged offences involved moral turpitude. Undisputedly, at the time of termination from service, the petitioner was only accused of the said offences, as none of the charges had been proved nor was he convicted of any offence. Mere involvement in a criminal case or framing of charges, is not a ground to terminate the service of a duly selected and appointed employee. Imputations to an employee's character which are subject to trial in a Court of law, will not cast an irrefutable doubt so as to render him/her ineligible for service. If that be so, the very purpose of putting someone on trial gets defeated. The accusation in itself cannot be suffice to pronounce the accused guilty to face the consequences. It is only when the accusations/charges are proved and the employee stands convicted of an offence, that he/she is disqualified from holding the post or being a part of service, not prior thereto. However, the petitioner's service has been terminated before the accusations could be proved, which renders the impugned order unsustainable in law.

9. In view of the discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned termination order, dated 09.02.2023/24.03.2023, is hereby set aside, holding that petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, including salary for the period he was prevented from working on the post due to illegal termination. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to join the service forthwith, and release due benefits to him within a period of four weeks from receiving a certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as

to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 19.03.2024

MANINDER Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

2024.04.04 18:53

I attest to the accuracy and Whether reportable : Yes/No authenticity of this

order/judgment.