Bhura Singh vs Fci And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 20035 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhura Singh vs Fci And Ors on 12 November, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363




1002       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 RSA-1168-2006
                                                 Date of decision: 12.11.2024

BHURA SINGH THROUGH HIS LRS
                                                               ...APPELLANT
                          V/S

FCI AND OTHERS
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:    Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the appellant.

            Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the respondents.
                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
               BRAR J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant through instant second appeal is seeking setting

aside of judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Sr. Div.), Mansa, Mansa dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration to

the effect that impugned order dated 24/25.06.2003 passed by Dist District rict Manager,

FCI-FSD FSD on the basis of police report dated 01.03.2002, terminating his service

with immediate effect under clause 14 of H.Qrs. Letter No.IR No.IR-(L) (L) 18(20)/94

Vol.II dated 18.02.1997 is illegal and against the service rules and with

consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents respondents--

defendants to withdraw the order of termination and reinstate the appellant appellant--

plaintiff with benefits, from the date of termination till the date of actual

payment of arrears. At the same time, prayer is also made in the instant second

appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2005 passed by

learned Additional District Judge, Mansa vide which the first appeal filed by

the present appellant was dismissed.

2. Case of the appellant before before the learned trial Court was that he was

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

appointed to the post of worker/employee/employee handling labourer in the

respondent corporation vide order dated 16/18.10.1997. Pursuant to his

selection, the appellant-plaintiff appellant plaintiff joined his duties w.e.f. 01.04.

01.04.1997.

1997. However,

vide order dated 24/25.06.2003 passed by respondent no.4, his services were

terminated with immediate effect on the ground of his past conviction prior to

his entry in the employment of the respondent corporation. No departmental

inquiry was conducted in his matter. Consequently, the appellant preferred a

suit before the learned trial Court for redressal of his grievances. The suit was

amended after the death of the appellant-plaintiff appellant plaintiff and his legal heirs were

brought on record.

3. Notice was was issued to the respondents respondents-defendants.

defendants. A written

statement was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein preliminary

objections were taken regarding locus standi of the petitioner. It was also

pleaded that the service of the appellant was terminated in tterms of clause-14of 14of

Head Quarters letter dated 18.02.1997 as character and antecedents of the

appellant were found to be bad in the verification report. It was also averred

that the appellant-plaintiff appellant plaintiff also suppressed material facts from the respondents

pertaining rtaining to his conviction under Sections Section 324, 148, 149 of IPC and on that

account, he was not entitled to any relief. On merits, similar objections were

raised by the respondents.

4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court

dismissed issed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff appellant plaintiff vide judgement and decree

dated 08.02.2005 while observing that he failed to disclose the factum of his

conviction and sentence at the time of his entry in the employment. Feeling

aggrieved against the judgment judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant appellant--

plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which was also

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

met the same fate vide judgment judgment and decree dated 20.08.2005. Both the

aforesaid judgments and decrees are under challenge in the pr present esent second

appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vociferously contends that the

appellant was working with the contractor of the respondent corporation since

1987 and he was later regularized in the year 1997. In the Bio Bio-Data Data form, there

was not even a single column asking for the antecedents of the applicants. He

further contends that merely a conviction of any person in a criminal case

cannot be made basis for termination of his services if that conviction does not

result from moral turpitude.

6. Per contra learned counsel for respondents submits that the

appellant-plaintiff plaintiff willfully concealed his criminal antecedents at the time of

seeking employment and he secured his appointment by suppressing material

information qua his conviction in FIR No.132 of 16.07.1980 registered at

Police Station- Bhikhi under Sections 324, 148, 149 of IPC, whereby, he was

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years. The same was only revealed to

the department in the letter dated 01.03.2000 of the Deputy Commissi Commissioner oner of

Police, Mansa. He argues that services of the appellant appellant-plaintiff plaintiff were rightly

terminated by the respondent corporation and that the second appeal filed by

him deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused

the record with their able assistance. It transpires that at the time of his

appointment, column No.12 of the attestation form required the appellant appellant--

plaintiff to disclose about his previous convictions, if any, but he answered the

same in negative.

negative. The said attestation form of the appellant was accompanied

by a declaration to the effect that information submitted by him in the

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

attestation form was true and correct. It is patently clear that the appellant appellant--

plaintiff tried to conceal the factum of hi hiss conviction and sentence.

Furthermore, the appellant also tried to obfuscate the factum of his conviction

and sentence during his cross-examination cross examination before the learned trial Court,

although he volunteered that he was released on probation but order of

releasing asing him on probation has not been proved on record. In addition, no

explanation has been put forth by the appellant as to why this fact was not

mentioned in the bio-data bio (Ex.P-2)

2) or Attestation Form (Ex.D (Ex.D-2)

2) or his

examination-in--chief (Ex.P-1). It is an undisputed fact that the appellant appellant--

plaintiff was convicted and sentenced in FIR No.132 of 16.07.1980 16.07.1980, vide

judgment and order dated 18.02.1992.

18.02.19 2. The conviction of the appellant appellant-plaintiff plaintiff

had already attained finality at the time of his appointment in 1997. It stands

conceded that the factum of past criminal record was suppressed from the

respondent-employer.

employer.

8. It is the considered opinion of this Court that the respondent respondent--

corporation was well within its right to pass the impugned order upon receiving

the report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mansa which revealed that

the appellant-plaintiff plaintiff had concealed the factum of his past conviction and

punishment at the time of his employment. It is trite law that, in case any

appointment has been obtained by by suppressing the relevant information from

the employer, the employer is well within its jurisdiction to take appropriate

action. The aforesaid principle has been resounded in the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Rajasthan Rajya Vi Vidyut dyut Prasaran

Nigam Limited and Another vs. Anil Kanwariya,(2021) 10 SCC 136 and the

followings observations have been made: -

"10.

10. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent applied in

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

the month of October/November, 2013 though he was already convicted by the competent court and was given the benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958 only, he did not disclose his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a declaration on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any criminal criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants gave him appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the antecedent's report from the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, dhopur, the appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent. Therefore, the appellants were absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent.

11. Even the conduct on the part of the respondent to obtain the order subsequently from the learned Sessions Court in an appeal and getting subsequently the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 deserves consideration. As observed hereinabove, the judgment and order of conviction by the learned trial Court was passed as far back as on 5.8.2013. F For or two years, the respondent did not file any appeal before the learned Sessions Court. After a period of approximately two years and after he obtained the appointment on the basis of the false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and having realised that his conviction and the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Act 1958 by the learned trial Court only will come in his way, subsequently after a period of two years he filed an appeal eal before the learned Sessions Court on 11.08.29015 and the appeal came to be disposed of within a period of one month, i.e., on 9.9.2015 and the learned Sessions Court granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958. From the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, it appears that the respondent only prayed for giving the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 and nothing was contended by him with regard to conviction and order of sentence. Therefore, with a view to get out of the conviction conviction and the benefit of Section 3 of the Act 1958 only and having realised that his conviction may come in his way, he preferred an appeal after a period of two years and obtained the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 which provides that a person found guilty

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.

Even otherwise, subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Ac Actt 1958 shall not be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is about filing a false declaration on 14.04.2015 that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law, which was much prior to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958. As observed hereinabove, even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.

12.. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whe whether ther he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an emp employee loyee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147363

RSA-1168-2006

9. In view of the above discussion as well as the settled principle of

law, which the learned counsel for the appellant appellant-plaintiff plaintiff has not been able to

rebut, the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Sr. Div.), Mansa and the judgment and decree decree dated 20.08.2005 passed by

learned Additional District Judge, Mansa are found to be in harmony with the

law.

10. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present

Regular Second Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

                                                      (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
November 12, 2024                                            JUDGE
manisha

            (i)     Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No

            (ii)    Whether reportable                           Yes/No




                                         7 of 7