Rajasthan High Court

Nand Kishore Meena S/O Shri Sukhdev ... vs General Manager (2024:Rj-Jp:10235) on 28 February, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:10235]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1724/2024
Nand Kishore Meena S/o Shri Sukhdev Meena, Aged About 49
Years, Through Joint General Secretary, Hind Majdoor Sabha,
Bangali Colony, Chhawani, Kota, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
General Manager, Disciplinary Officer, Oriental Bank Of
Commerce, Anand Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Sansar Chand Road,
Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari for
                                Mr. Himanshu Jain


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                            Order

28/02/2024

1.           The instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, with the following prayers:-

     "i. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the
     order dated 03.07.2006 may be quashed along with
     other consequential orders and order/judgment dated
     04.10.2023 may be quashed and set aside, and the
     claim petition may be allowed as prayed for;

     ii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the
     respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner
     on the post of Cleaner with the back wages and
     furthermore, to accord the reinstatement with all
     consequential benefits.
     iii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the
     respondents may be directed to release the back wages
     of the petitioner along with the interest of 12% p.a. to
     the petitioner.
     iv. Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble High
     Court may deem fair, just and proper in the facts and
     circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of
     the Petitioner."

2.           It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner applied for the post of Cleaner-Class IV. While

[2024:RJ-JP:10235] (2 of 6) [CW-1724/2024]

filling the application form, the petitioner vide Annexure-3, in

terms of Paragraph 19, categorically stated that the petitioner

had never been arrested/prosecuted/kept under detention and/or

convicted by any Court of law, for any offense involving moral

turpitude. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that previously, while the petitioner had been arrested

and/or prosecuted against, the petitioner exercised the option to

mark 'no', solely on account of the fact that the petitioner had

been acquitted for the concerned offenses, on account of his

admission and thereafter, given the benefit under the Probation

of Offenders Act, 1958. In this background, on account of the

said concealment, the respondents vide order dated 03.07.2006,

terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner approached the Tribunal. However, the learned

Tribunal, vide order impugned dated 04.10.2023, dismissed the

appeal so filed, without considering the facts of the case and

also, the law applicable. To contest the findings arrived at by the

learned Tribunal, learned counsel contended that keeping in mind

the policies of social reform, the concealment, if not material,

should be ignored and disproportionate punishment so awarded,

ought to be set aside. In this regard, reliance was placed upon

the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in 2022 Live

Law (SC) 300 titled as Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. The

Inspector General & Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F.,

Northern Railway, New Delhi & Ors. Reliance was also placed

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana: Civil Appeal

[2024:RJ-JP:10235] (3 of 6) [CW-1724/2024]

No.8510/2011 and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. &

Ors.:Civil Appeal No.5902/2012.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, scanned the

record of the petition and perused through the judgments cited

at Bar.

4. It is trite law that there is a limited scope of

interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Prior to penning down observations on merits, this

Court deems it appropriate to take note of the option exercised

by the petitioner and/or entry filled by the petitioner, whilst filling

the application form. The relevant extract of Annexure-3 i.e.

petitioners application form, is reproduced herein-under:-

"¼d½ D;k vkidh fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk uSfrd Hkz'Vkpkj ds vijk/k esa dHkh fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k gS] utjcUn vFkok ifjc)@tqekZuk fd;k x;k gS] nks'kh Bgjk;k x;k gS \ ;fn gka rks fooj.k nsaA ugha Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence involving moral turpitude? If yes, give details.

¼[k½ D;k vki ij fdlh laLFkk }kjk mldh ijh{kk esa cSBus ij izfrcU/k yxk;k x;k gS@v;ksX; ?kksf'kr fd;k x;k gS] fdlh fo"ofo|ky; ;k fdlh vU; "kSf{kd izkf/kdj.k@laLFkk }kjk dHkh fudkys x;s gSa \ ;fn gka rks fooj.k nsaA ugha Have you ever been debared/disqualified by any institution from appearing at the examination, rusticated by any university or any other educational authority/institution? If yes, given details. ¼x½ D;k fdlh vnkyr esa vkids fo:) uSfrd Hkz'Vkpkj dk dksbZ eqdnek] ekeyk fopkjk/khu gSa] ;fn gS rks fooj.k nsaA ugha In any case pending against you in any court of law involving moral turpitude? If yes, give details. ¼?k½ bl lR;kiu izi= dks Hkjrs le; D;k vkids fo:) fdlh fo"ofo| ky; vFkok fdlh vU; "kSf{kd laLFkk@izkf/kdj.k esa dksbZ ekeyk

[2024:RJ-JP:10235] (4 of 6) [CW-1724/2024]

fopkjk/khu gS \ ;fn gka rks fooj.k nsAa ugha In any case pending against you in any University or any other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this attestation form ? If you give details.

6. Furthermore, the relevant extract of the order

impugned dated 04.10.2023, is reproduced herein-under as

well:-

ßbl izdkj mijksDr fo"ys'k.k o foospu ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ us pksjh ds izdj.k esa LosPNk ls viuk tqeZ Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk mls nks'kh ?kksf'kr fd;k tkdj ifjoh{kk dk ykHk fn;k x;k gS ysfdu izkFkhZ us mDr rF;ksa dks vius jkstxkj izkIr djus gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds fcUnq la- 19 ¼D;k vkidks fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk uSfrd] Hkz'Vkpkj ds vkjksi esa dHkh fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k gS] utjcan vFkok ifjc)@tqqekZuk fd;k x;k gS] nks'kh Bgjk;k x;k gS ;fn gk¡ rks fooj.k ns½ esa ßughaÞ Hkjdj ekaxh xbZ tkudkjh dks tkucw>dj feF;k dFku djrs gq, n"kkZ;k x;k gS rkfd cSad esa jkstxkj izkIr gks lds ftldk dh og ik= ugha FkkA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd cSd a Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe gS tgka ij vketu ds /ku o /kjksgj dk j[k&j[kko o ysu&nsu gksrk gS] ,sls miØeksa esa dk;Z djus okys deZpkjh dk lnpfj=] bZekunkj o fo"oluh; gksuk vfr vko";d gS ysfdu izkFkhZ us rF;ksa dks Nqikdj jkstxkj izkIr fd;k gSA

fu;kstd i{k }kjk i=koyh tks lk{; is"k dh xbZ gS og v[kf.Mr jgh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa tks fu'd'kZ fn;k gS og ;qfDr;qDr ,oa mfpr gS vkSj muds fu'd'kZ ls ;g U;k;ky; Hkh lger gSA rnqijkUr l{ke izkf/kdkjh mi egkizca/kd ¼vuq"kklfud izkf/kdkjh½ }kjk izkFkhZ ds d`r; ds fy, mls nks'kh ik;s tkus dk fu'd'kZ fudkydj mlds nqjkpj.k ds d`R; dks ns[krs gq, cSad lsok ls rRdky izHkko ls c[kkZLr djus dk tks vkns"k fn- 03-07-2006 dks ikfjr fd;k gS og fdlh izdkj ls vuuqikfrd (Disproportionate) ugha gS cfYd iw.kZr;k mfpr ,oa oS/k gS vkSj mlesa U;k;ky; dh jk; esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ fdlh vuqrks'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf'kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS rFkk funsZ"k@jsÝsUl blh vuq:i mÙkfjr gksus ;ksX; gSAÞ

7. Upon a perusal of the record, the following material facts have emerged, namely:-

7.1. That vide the application form issued by the respondents, a

specific query was raised before the applicants, regarding their

[2024:RJ-JP:10235] (5 of 6) [CW-1724/2024]

criminal history, more particularly, with regards to their previous

arrest/prosecution/detention and/or conviction for an offense

involving moral turpitude.

7.2. That the petitioner, vide Annexure-3, in terms of Paragraph

19, categorically exercised the option of stating 'no', when posed

with the aforesaid query.

7.3. That the said option was exercised by the petitioner, despite

having due knowledge regarding his previous prosecution

wherein the petitioner was acquitted on account of his own

admission in the Year 2001. Therefore, despite having due

knowledge, established by his own admission, the petitioner

concealed material information qua previous prosecution, in

order to secure employment with the respondents. In essence,

despite possessing due knowledge, when posed with a specific

query, the petitioner concealed material information, for securing

employment on the basis of incorrect particulars.

7.4. That recruitment on the subject post of Cleaner-Class IV is

to be administered by the requirements/conditions of the

respondent-employer, which sought certain information regarding

the applicants criminal history, regardless of their acquittal or

conviction. The ascertainment of criteria for administering

recruitment, fell purely within the domain and discretion of the

respondent-employer.

8. In this background, it is noted that when dealing with

matters of concealment, the Courts ought to juxtapose the

nature of suppression/concealment on part of the applicant with

the nature and/or terms of the recruitment. The domain to

[2024:RJ-JP:10235] (6 of 6) [CW-1724/2024]

decide what information is material for assessing the candidature

of the applicants, is purely of the respondent-employer.

9. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for

the petitioner are distinguishable for the reason, that even the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported

in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has categorically held that the applicants

ought to make a truthful declaration with regards to a concluded

criminal case, when said information is sought, whilst seeking

employment. The subsequent decision of the employer to appoint

or not appoint, could only be taken pursuant to and/or on the

basis of the truthful declaration at the end of the applicant,

regardless of the factum of acquittal.

10. Even otherwise, it is noted that in the opinion of this

Court, the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned speaking

order and after consideration of material facts, arrived at a

logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the

reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal. No palpable error or

perversity has crept in the order impugned, warranting

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.