Point of Law : Respondents can review the appointment of the petitioner only subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against her by following recourse to the law at that time. Mere pendency of the criminal case and the entry made in the antecedent form cannot be the grounds for cancellation of the appointment order of the petitioner.

ORDER :

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.ESTT.II/1417/2019/DSC-2019, dated 26.03.2020 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Multi Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) in the respondent-Department on contract basis by the proceedings of the respondent No.3 dated 13.11.2015 and she worked from 14.11.2015 to 24.09.2019. While so, the respondent-Department issued a recruitment notification for the post of Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II) in the year 2019 calling for applications from the eligible candidates. In pursuance of the same she applied for the post of Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II) and she succeeded in the selection process. Hence, the respondents sent call letter dated 25.09.2019 asking her to produce original certificates for verification. Accordingly she appeared before the respondent No.2 on the said date by producing all the original educational certificates and copies of the same. Having satisfied with the same, the respondents asked her to submit antecedent forms by filling up duly the check list. Then she has taken the assistance of nearby computer operator to fill up the check list form on computer and requested him to type the answer as “Yes” in the column for the information asked “is any case pending against him in any court of law”. But inadvertently the computer operator typed it as “No” in the said column as it was done routinely in the other columns. But there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband and as such some cases arose like maintenance case in M.C.No.52 of 2014, DVC No.3 of 2017 and HMOP No.25 of 2016 filed by the petitioner’s husband for divorce which are pending before the trial courts. Similarly, Crime No.118 of 2014 and Crime No.159 of 2015 were also registered in the police station and the respondents know about these disputes and they noted about these antecedents in the initial appointment itself which is on contract basis. On coming to know of the petitioner’s selection as Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II), the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint dated 30.09.2019 stating that crime No.262 of 2015 under Sections 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and others and requested the authorities not to issue appointment order. After full-fledged enquiry the respondents herein having found that the said cases are frivolous/trivial in nature issued appointment order on 14.10.2019 to the petitioner by taking a written undertaking letter dated 13.10.2019 to the effect that the appointment is subject to the outcome of the said case. Then she reported to duty on 14.10.2019 itself and started discharging duties to the satisfaction of one and all. Having not satisfied with the attempts made, the petitioner’s husband again complained on 21.10.2019 to the respondents stating that a case in C.C.No.184 of 2016 is pending against the petitioner and sought for cancellation of her appointment. As they are already aware of the petitioner’s antecedent they did not act upon such frivolous complaints of the petitioner’s husband. Then he filed W.P.No.20608 of 2019 against the official respondents to take action on his complaints against the petitioner herein. As the respondents are one and the same in the present writ petition and the above said writ petition, they felt pressure and embarrassment from the side of the petitioner’s husband and ultimately issued a show cause notice dated 28.02.2020 calling for explanation of the petitioner for which the petitioner gave explanation. But without looking into the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2020 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Village Agricul