The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to disclose criminal antecedents may not justify termination of employment, especially if the charges are trivial and do not affect the individual's moral turpitude.

JUDGMENT

Aniruddha Roy, J. - Facts:-

1. On February 23, 2011 an employment notice was published by the third respondent inviting application from the public at large for both male and female candidates for filling up the Post of Constables in all the Zonal Railways all over the country.

2. Pursuant to and in terms of the employment notice the petitioner in March 2011 applied thereunder for the Post of Constable. On May 31, 2011 a charge-sheet was submitted by the Chakda Police Station before the Learned Magistrate, Kalyani, District- Nadia under Section 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner on June 02, 2014 submitted his Attestation Form. On June 18, 2015 the petitioner was declared to be medically fit for the initial course of training at Railway Protection Force (for short, R.P.F) Training Course, N.F. Railways, Domohani and became selected for regular absorption in the Post of Constable, R.P.F, Eastern Railway on June 26, 2015. On July 14, 2015 the petitioner was directed to appear at the Office of the third respondent. He appeared. By an order dated January 20, 2015 passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate the petitioner was acquitted under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant bail bond stood discharged, Annexure P- 2 to the writ petition.

3. On July 13, 2015 the petitioner was served notice of termination of his service, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner did not disclose the pending police case in the attestation form, which amounted to a false declaration and accordingly on such plea of furnishing false declaration and for suppression of material fact his service was terminated, Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner completed his initial training course for a period of nine months, qualified successfully and became eligible for regular appointment at the Post of Constable and accordingly the petitioner reported the R.P.F Headquarter, Eastern Railway on June 26, 2015 for receiving the said appointment.

4. Challenging the said order of termination dated July 13, 2015 the petitioner moved a previous writ petition being W.P. No. 23959 (W) of 2015. By an order dated September 16, 2015, a Coordinate Bench was pleased to dispose of the said previous writ petition by directing the second respondent to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a time framed.

5. Pursuant to the direction dated September 16, 2015 the second respondent disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated July 31, 2015 and rejected the contention of the petitioner by its impugned order dated October 14, 2015, Annexure P-6 to the writ petition.

6. Assailing, inter alia, the said decision of the respondent no.2 dated October 14, 2015 instant writ petition was filed.

7. The parties had filed and exchanged their respective affidavits.

Submissions:-

8. Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that, out of a bona fide mistake the petitioner did not disclose the initiation and pendency of the criminal case in the attestation form which was merely an omission. He submitted that, a neighbour, namely, Ranjit Biswas of the petitioner, lodged a false complaint against all the family members of the petitioner, including the petitioner out of jealously. The jurisdictional police authority did not entertain the same and as such the neighbour applied before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, at Kalyani and on the basis of a direction made by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate a criminal case was initiated by the jurisdictional police station under Section 341/232/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Referring to Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, which was an order dated January 20, 2015 passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he submitted that, all the accused family members including the petitioner were acquitted at the time of examination of the de facto complainant and the alleged injured submitt