Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 311
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Uday Chandra Das - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Decided on : Apr 17,2009
G.S. Makkar, Mrinmoy Bhattacharji, Pratik Dhar, Ritwik Pattanayak, Surya Sarathi Basu,
Suppression of material information and false statements in verification rolls have a bearing on an employee's character and antecedents, and an employer has the discretion to terminate services based on such factors.
Headnote:
VERIFICATION OF CHARACTER AND ANTECEDENTS - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACT - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (TEMPORARY SERVICE) RULES, 1965 - RULE 5(1) - FACTUAL SUPPRESSION - CONFUSION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - The petitioner's service was terminated for suppressing vital facts while filling up the verification roll, rendering him disqualified to continue in service. The petitioner argued that he did not answer the question due to confusion, as it contained three blocks and the requirement to read "have you ever been" before each block was unclear. The court held that the petitioner's argument lacked merit, as the Hindi version of the question made it clear that the words were to be read in segregation. The court relied on precedents holding that suppression of material information and false statements have a bearing on the character and antecedents of an employee, and that an employer has the discretion to terminate services based on such factors.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was terminated from service for suppressing vital facts in the verification roll, particularly his arrest and prosecution in a criminal case. Despite being acquitted, he failed to disclose this information, which the court deemed a negative reflection on his character.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's argument regarding confusion in the verification roll question was not supported by the Hindi version, which clearly indicated that the words "have you ever been" were to be read separately for each block. The court also noted that the petitioner had not raised any issue of confusion in the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's suppression of information regarding his arrest and prosecution constituted a material suppression disqualifying him from service. 2. Whether the petitioner's argument of confusion in understanding the verification roll question was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's suppression of information regarding his arrest and prosecution was a material suppression that had a bearing on his character and antecedents. The court relied on precedents establishing that an employer has the discretion to terminate services based on such factors.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's suppression of information justified the termination of his service.
1. THE order dated 24th November, 2008 issued by the Deputy inspector General of Police, Group-C, Central Reserve Police Force, durgapur terminating forthwith the service of the petitioner under the proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition.
2. SINCE the impugned order did not record any reason in support of the action taken, I had by my order dated 13th March, 2009 directed Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondents to place the records relevant to termination of the petitioner's service.
The records (not in original but photocopies thereof) have since been placed for my consideration. Mr. Dhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been given inspection thereof. He has not questioned the genuineness of the copy of the documents produced.
3. THE petitioner's service appears to have been terminated because while filling up the verification roll, he had allegedly suppressed vital facts which rendered him disqualified to continue in service of the Force. Mr. Bhattacharya referred to Question No. 12 (a) and (b) of the verification roll which the petitioner was required to answer correctly but did not attempt to answer. Question No. 12 (a) and (b) were to the following effect:-
"12. (a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/institution? (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, university or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? if answer to (a) or (b) is 'yes' then give details of prosecution, detention fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/university/education authority at the time of filling in this form. "
4. IT is noticed from the petition that the petitioner was arraigned as accused in Sessions Case No. 186/2004, corresponding to Sessions Trial no. 50/2005, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional district and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Katwa acquitted him vide judgment dated 12th October, 2006 on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The verification roll was filled up by him more than a year later, on 17th December, 2007 to be precise; yet, for some undisclosed reason, he did not give any answer to Question No. 12 (a) though Mr. Dhar did not dispute that he had been arrested but released on bail later on.
However, Mr. Dhar submitted that even if the petitioner did not answer Question No. 12 (a), that could not be a factor to disqualify him from continuing in service for there was no suppression of any material fact on his part. According to him, a distinction must be drawn between material suppression which might debar appointment and a suppression arising out of confusion as a result whereof the question goes unanswered. Elaborating on the point of confusion, he urged that Question No. 12 (a) is a confusing question. It contains three blocks and it could be the requirement that the words "have you ever been" are to be read before each block of words i. e. (i) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offence? or (ii) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any public Service Commission from appearing at its examination selections? or (iii) Have you ever been debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/institution? The second and third blocks would not be relevant in the present case but he contended that the first block being relevant and read in the manner he reads it, it would seem that informat
