Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Prashant Maratha vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9235/2022

Dr. Prashant Maratha S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Maratha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. 897, Blood Bank Road, Basant Vihar, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar, Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. The Registrar, Agriculture University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Dr. Nupur Bhati.
                                 Mr. Rajendra Singh.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Suniel Purohit.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
13/09/2022

This petition has been filed questioning the order passed by

the respondents denying the appointment to the petitioner on the

post of Assistant Professor in subject Extension Education on the

ground that petitioner suppressed pendency of criminal trial

against him in pursuance of the FIR No. 147/2020 under Sections

406 & 498A IPC.

It is inter alia indicated in the petition that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 13/4/2022 issued by the respondent

University for the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner applied

for the said post in the subject Extension Education. In the

application form filled by the petitioner (Annex.2), in the column,

whereby, the petitioner was asked 'Is there any court case/police

(2 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

case pending against you? If so, give details.', the petitioner

marked "No".

After undergoing the recruitment procedure as prescribed in

the advertisement, by order dated 18/5/2022, on the

recommendation of the Statutory Selection Committee meeting

and interview, the petitioner was accorded appointment as

Assistant Professor, Extension Education. In the order, it was inter

alia indicated that the appointment is subject to antecedents

verification.

It is submitted that on account of the appointment order

dated 18/5/2022 (Annex.3), the petitioner, who was working as

Manager with the Bank of Baroda, submitted his resignation,

which was accepted on 21/6/2022 (Annex.4). It is then stated in

the petition that in the police verification held qua the petitioner

(Annex.5), it was disclosed that an FIR No. 147/2020 was lodged

against him under Section 406 and 498A IPC, wherein, trial was

pending against the petitioner, on which account apparently, the

petitioner was not permitted to join and, therefore, the petitioner

sent an email (Annex.6) to the respondents to permit him to join

pursuant to the order of appointment dated 18/5/2022. Based on

the above facts the prayer as noticed has been made.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed along with an order

dated 30/6/2022 (Annex.R/2/1), wherein, the Committee

constituted for the purpose, recommended that as the petitioner

had concealed the facts while submitting his application form to

the University, which is violation of the terms and conditions of

filling the application form and as per the terms and conditions

mentioned in his appointment order, he cannot be allowed to join,

therefore, action may be taken accordingly. Based on which, by

(3 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

order dated 5/7/2022 (Annex.R/2/2), the order of appointment

dated 18/5/2022 issued in favour of the petitioner has been

cancelled with immediate effect.

Further submissions have been made in the reply that as the

petitioner had concealed the fact of pendency of criminal case in

his application form, which fact came to light only by way of police

verification, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief from

the Court and in terms of the advertisement, application form and

the order of appointment, the orders have been passed cancelling

the appointment of the petitioner, which do not require any

interference.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement

submissions that the petitioner had mistakenly and unintentionally

not mentioned the details of the pending court case or the police

case registered against him because he was under the impression

that the case lodged against him is a family matter, which was not

required to be disclosed.

Further submissions have been made that based on the

appointment accorded to the petitioner, the petitioner has

resigned from his service with Bank of Baroda and in case he is

not accorded appointment by the respondents, the petitioner will

suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as based on the order of

appointment the petitioner having resigned from a permanent job,

he would be now rendered unemployed, therefore, on that count

also the orders (Annex.R/2/1 & R/2/2) filed by the respondents

along with reply deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Further submissions have been made that mere pendency of

the case against the petitioner cannot be a reason enough to deny

(4 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

appointment to the petitioner and on that count also the order

impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Reliance has been placed on Mukesh Kumar vs. State of

Rajasthan : (2016) 2 RLW (Raj.) 915, Mahendra Singh Rathore

vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 19152/2018

decided on 11/2/2019 and Ashu Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan :

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5034/2008 decided on 27/9/2008.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is baseless as

suppression of the pending criminal case is apparent and that in

terms of the terms & conditions of the advertisement and the

order according appointment to the petitioner, the action of the

respondents cannot be faulted.

Submissions have been made that on account of deliberate

suppression of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

Reliance has been placed on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut

Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Anil Kanwariya : (2021) 10

SCC 136.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A bare perusal of the application form filled by the petitioner

(Annex.2) reveals that in column 15.b. a specific question was put

as to whether any court case/police case was pending against the

applicant and details were sought, to which the petitioner gave the

answer "No". The said question was not qualified in any manner

for the petitioner to claim that he was under the impression that

as the case lodged against him is a family matter, he was not

required to disclose it.

(5 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

The advertisement (Annex.1) under the general conditions

and instructions inter alia provided as under:

"10. A candidate, who knowingly or willfully furnishes incorrect or false particulars or suppresses material information, will be disqualified and, if appointed, will be liable to dismissal from service without prior notice."

The application form inter alia contained the following

declaration from the petitioner:

"Declaration I certify that the above information is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed/distorted. If at any time, it is found that any information is false, concealed, distorted then my appointment shall be liable to summarily termination without any notice/compensation & criminal case may be initiated against me under the relevant provision of Indian Penal Code and other laws as applicable."

Further, the order of appointment also contained a specific

stipulation under the terms and conditions, wherein, clause 6.C.

inter alia provided as under:

"C. The appointment is subjected to Antecedents verification. He/she must submit the Police verification Certificate issued by Department of Police, failing which and in case of adverse findings, he/she shall not be allowed to join and his/her appointment will be terminated without any notice."

From the above stipulations, it is apparent that on the part of

the respondent University, it was emphasized and re-emphasized

that if a candidate knowingly or intentionally furnishes incorrect or

false particulars or suppresses material information, he will be

disqualified and even if appointed, will be liable to dismissal from

service without notice.

The petitioner in his declaration in the application form,

where he had indicated "No" regarding pendency of the criminal

case, had indicated that information was correct and compete and

nothing has been concealed or distorted and further indicated that

(6 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

if at any time it is found that any information is false, concealed or

distorted then his appointment would be liable to be summarily

terminated without any notice/compensation and criminal case

may be initiated against him.

Whereafter, the order of appointment dated 18/5/2022

(Annex.5) was subject to antecedents verification and it was

required of the petitioner to submit the police verification

certificate, wherein, in case of adverse finding he shall not be

allowed to join and his appointment would be terminated without

any notice.

The specious plea taken by the petitioner that he did not

disclose the information by mistake and unintentionally is

essentially of no consequence whatsoever.

It is not in dispute in light of the police verification report

(Annex.5) that with regard to FIR no. 147/2020 lodged with

Mahila Thana, Kota City under Sections 406 & 498A IPC trial was

pending against the petitioner, which aspect was material and was

suppressed by the petitioner.

The respondents by order dated 5/7/2022 (Annex.R/2/2),

passed during the pendency of the writ petition, based on the

recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose

(Annex.R/2/1), which considered the concealment and came to

the conclusion that the same was in violation of the terms and

conditions of the application form and the order of appointment,

opined taking of action against the petitioner, cancelled the

appointment of the petitioner.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kanwariya

(supra), even in a case of trivial nature of offence involved, inter

alia came to the following conclusion:

(7 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

"14. 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 whether 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 employee 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 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.

15. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified."

In State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Chetan Jeff : 2022 SCC

Online SC 597, a case pertaining to the post of Constable, again

the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in the case

of Anil Kanwariya (supra) inter alia observed as under:

"25. The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form. If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity?

26. Therefore, as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable."

(8 of 8) [CW-9235/2022]

So far as the judgments on which the learned counsel for

petitioner has placed reliance are concerned, in none of the cases,

the issue of suppression of pendency of criminal case was involved

and as such the same are of no avail to the petitioner.

So far as the fact that the petitioner has resigned from the

service of Bank of Baroda is concerned, the same itself cannot

obliterate the implication of suppression made by him in the

application form pertaining to the pendency of criminal case and

the petitioner cannot escape the consequences of his own wrong

on account of his resignation. Issue would have been different, in

case the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of the case and,

thereafter, on account of according of the appointment by the

University, he had resigned.

From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner has

deliberately suppressed the pendency of criminal case against him

in the application and in view of specific stipulations made in the

advertisement and order of appointment along with the

declaration made by the petitioner in the application form coupled

with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Anil Kanwariya (supra) & Chetan Jeff (supra) the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.