Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
CHANDRESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI BAGTHARIYA - Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20732 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 419, 465, 467, 471, 114 – Basic pay – Pay scale - Petitioner was appointed on probation by Deputy General Manager of respondent on post of Probationary Clerk vide order on certain terms and conditions - Probation period of petitioner was for six months with a rider that same can further be extended by three months - Petitioner had successfully completed probation period and as petitioner was meeting with all requirements needed by respondents, petitioner was made permanent with basic pay of certain sum per month in pay scale - Petitioner has put in all efforts and has performed his duty diligently - It has been since years that petitioner is working with respondent and there has not been any complaint by any of office bearers - Respondent intimated the Petitioner that they have received one complaint wherein it has been informed that in past one FIR was registered against petitioner- Whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
Finding of the court: 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 employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing 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 - In order to enable Appointing Authority to pass orders, court direct the appellant to file an appropriate representation before Appointing Authority and Appointing Authority will pass orders, in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of a representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to appellant - In view of dictum of law, without entering into merits of the matter, in view of the judgment of Avtar Singh (Supra), respondent is directed to consider afresh the case of petitioner in light of law laid down by Apex Court and pass appropriate order after holding departmental inquiry before passing order of termination/removal /dismissal on the ground of submitting false information in the Form as the petitioner is confirmed in service.
Result: Petition is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Vishwas Shah for the respondent No.2.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 18.11.2019 bearing No.AMOC/HRM/DAC/41/2019/ABH, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to report for duty uninfluenced by the impugned order of termination on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and reasonable in the interest of justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.2 The petitioner has put in all efforts and has performed his duty diligently. It has been since years that the petitioner is working with the respondent No.2 at Gondal Branch and there has not been any complaint by any of the office bearers.
3.3 The respondent No.2 on 3rd July, 2019 intimated the Petitioner that they have received one complaint dated 27th May, 2019 wherein it has been informed that in past one FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was thus asked to clarify on the said aspect and accordingly the petitioner on 15th July, 2019 gave appropriate clarification intimating that the petitioner was not involved in the said case and the petitioner has been wrongly framed for oblique reasons and the name of the petitioner was never been mentioned in the FIR.
3.4 In the reply dated 15th July, 2019 the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has never been arrested by the Police and the petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the competent court by specifically observing that the petitioner has played no direct or indirect role in commission of offence.
3.5 The respondent No.2 thereafter issued show cause notice dated 13th August, 2019 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated as the petitioner has not disclosed his antecedents as well as the fact that the Petitioner was earlier employed elsewhere.
3.6 Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner gave a detailed reply dated 20th August, 2019 pointing out the fact that the petitioner is not convicted and in the entire FIR name of the petitioner is not mentioned. As far as the previous employment is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was recruited on temporary basis and as the petitioner was not permanent, the same was not disclosed. The petitioner clarified that the petitioner has not furnished any false information or has suppressed any factual aspects intentionally.
3.7 The respondent No.2, without giving opportunity of hearing and without conducting any inquiry, and also without providing to the petitioner the documents relied upon, straightaway terminated the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18th November, 2019 with immediate effec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
