SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J.
 
Rajesh Kumar Mahto, S/o. Dinanath Mahto - Petitioner 
Versus 
The Union of India through Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna and Ors. – Respondents 
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10878 of 2012
Decided On : 22-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the UoI : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGC

Employment applicants must disclose criminal antecedents, and failure to do so can result in termination under applicable rules.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965 - Rule-5 (1) and (2)(a) - Termination of services of temporary Government servant - Petitioner's services were terminated for suppression of pending criminal case during character verification - The order of termination was based on the verification roll which warned that suppression would disqualify the applicant - The appellate authority affirmed the termination. (Paras 4-10)

(B) Employment Law - Misrepresentation in employment application - Disclosure of criminal antecedents is crucial; failure to disclose a pending case results in disqualification. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a government post, was appointed, but later terminated upon discovery of a pending criminal case that was not disclosed in the character verification process. Petitioner claimed ignorance of the case but had sought anticipatory bail prior to application.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner intentionally concealed information, justifying the termination of services as per the CCS rules.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner suppressed relevant information regarding a pending criminal case during the application process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner had knowingly withheld information, thus justifying the termination as per the rules regarding character verification. The court emphasized the importance of honesty in employment applications.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's selection and termination process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appeal process under ccs rules. (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioner’s acquittal post-termination. (Para 7)
4. union’s argument regarding suppression of information. (Para 8)
5. grounds for service termination upheld. (Para 9)
6. writ petition dismissed. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure-9) and order dated 26.04.2012 (Annexure-1), whereby the respondent authority has rejected the case of the petitioner under Rule-5 (2) (a) of Central Civil Services (Hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS’) (Temporary Service Rule, 1965).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post in question and subsequently he got selected and was appointed to the said post on 15.05.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his enrollment, he filled up the form no. 25 and gave declaration with respect to the various details and also with respect to his character and antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed the same on 09.06.2010, whereby he has stated that there is no case pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of filing the form with respect to the character and criminal antecedent, the petitioner had no prior knowledge about the criminal case and unexpectedly on 12.01.2010, the respondent no. 4 issued an order by which the petitioner was terminated under Rule-5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule, 1965), which is as under:

“(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant;

(b) the period of such notice shall be one month.

Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

NOTE:- The following procedure shall be adopted by the appointing authority while serving notice on such Government servant under clause (a).

(i) The notice shall be delivered or tendered to the Government servant in person.

(ii) Where personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served on such Government servant by registered post, acknowledgement due at the address of the Government servant available with the appointing authority.

(iii) If the notice sent by registered post is returned unserved it shall be published in the Official Gazette and upon such publication, it shall be deemed to have been personally served on such Government servant on the date it was published in the Official Gazette.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner challenged the termination order in CWJC No. 2236 of 2012 and the same was withdrawn on 03.02.2012 with a liberty to avail the remedy under Rule-5 (2)(a) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule, 1965) and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the application of the petitioner in six weeks from the date of publication.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Rule-5 (2)(a) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule, 1965) petitioner has filed an application before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 26.04.2012.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top