Telangana High Court

D. Saraswathi vs Registrar Admn, High Court Of ... on 20 June, 2024

              THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

                                    AND

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.21676 of 2017

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel representing Sri

Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.

V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for TSHC.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

challenges the order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner

dated 31.05.2016 and also the order dated 22.12.2016, whereby her

appeal/representation against the order dated 31.05.2016 was

rejected.

4. In nutshell, the relevant facts are that the petitioner submitted

her candidature for the post of Office Subordinate. As per the

petitioner, she disclosed the relevant facts which were required to be

disclosed by her as per the verification from. Since the petitioner

was selected, she was duly appointed by order dated 31.12.2015

and joined duty on 06.01.2016.

5. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated

25.04.2016 (annexure P-2), wherein it is averred that the

Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, submitted 'antecedents report'

of the petitioner stating that she was prosecuted in Crime No.36 of

2012 under Sections 379, 447, 331, 506 and 120-B of IPC, and trial

is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad,

vide C.C. No.213 of 2013. It is alleged that the petitioner has

suppressed facts about her antecedents and the pendency of the

criminal case against her and therefore, she should show cause as

to why her appointment should not be cancelled.

6. The petitioner by reply dated 02.05.2016 (annexure P3) urged

that the dispute which became foundation for the criminal case was

a land dispute. She was not aware of any Service Rules under

which she was required to furnish the aforesaid information.

7. The impugned order dated 31.05.2016 was passed by the

learned District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, cancelling

the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner

preferred a detailed appeal/representation dated 14.06.2016

(annexure P-5) which came to be dismissed by order dated

22.12.2016. Thus, the orders dated 31.05.2016 and 22.12.2016

are the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular

contention. He submits that the respondents along with their

counter filed the relevant 'verification form'. The entry No.11 shows

that any information required to be given by the petitioner was not

suppressed by her. The limited information sought for is relating to

arrest, conviction and detention of the petitioner by the respondents.

No information was desired whether the petitioner was ever

tried/prosecuted. In absence of requirement of disclosure of any

such information, the question of suppression on the part of the

petitioner does not arise. In support of his contention, he placed

reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

West Bengal & Others Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana 1 and urged that the

law laid down by the Apex Court squarely covers his case.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported

the impugned orders and placed reliance on clause 11 of the

'verification form'. She submits that since the petitioner has not

furnished information regarding pendency of criminal case and that

she was being prosecuted, the respondents have rightly cancelled

her appointment for suppression of facts regarding her antecedents.

Civil Appeal No.8510 of 2011 dt. 22.08.2023

10. In his rejoinder submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted from above

criminal case by judgment dated 08.01.2021.

11. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated

above.

12. We have heard parties at length and perused the record.

13. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apt to re-

produce the clause 11 of verification form, which reads as under:

"Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State / Central Preventive Detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against.

(Note: If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the concerned Department or the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which, it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information). If the answer is 'Yes,' the full particulars of the conviction, sentences and detention should be given."

14. The Apex Court way back in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav 2 opined that it is not the gravity

of the charge or acquittal which will determine the question of

2003(3) SCC 437

suppression of facts. If certain facts were required to be disclosed

but deliberately suppressed, despite the trivial nature of the charge

or subsequent acquittal or dropping of the charge, the appointment

can be cancelled.

15. The relevant clause of verification form in Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra) was as under:

"Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence? Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form?

16. If this clause in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra)

is examined in juxtaposition to the clause 11 mentioned herein

above, it will be clear like noon day that in clause 11, the petitioner

was not required to disclose whether she was tried or prosecuted at

all. Putting it differently, the language employed in clause 11

aforesaid is totally different than the clause applicable in the case of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2nd supra).

17. After considering the judgment of the Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan (2nd supra), the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh

Vs. Union of India 3 laid down certain principles. Para 38.10 reads

thus:

(2016) 8 SCC 471

"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."

(Emphasis supplied)

(1) It is noteworthy that in the instant case there is no

allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice that

she was 'arrested', 'convicted' or 'detained', and such

information was suppressed.

18. The ratio decidendi of this judgment is recently followed in the

case of State of West Bengal (1st supra) and also in a recent

judgment in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 4 On the strength

of para 38.10 above, the Apex Court in clear terms held that the

question of suppression does not arise where the

attestation/verification form is not specific and does not require

such information to be disclosed. In other words, if information was