Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWPOA No.5358 of 2020
Decided on : 12-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 471, 201 – Praying for quashing the office – Default clauses – Offence and punishment imposed – Criminal cases – Criminal conspiracy – Punishment for cheating by personation – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Forgery of valuable security – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence – It is in aforesaid background that petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking substantive reliefs – Where employer feels that an employee at initial stage itself had made a false statement and did not disclose material facts, then, employee concerned cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future. [Para 4]
Finding of the Court: Question is about credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee, who at initial stage of employment, i.e. while submitting declaration/verification and/or applying for a post, made false declaration and/or did not disclose and/or suppressed material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If correct facts would have been disclosed, employer might not have appointed him – Question is of trust, therefore, in such a situation, where employer feels that an employee at initial stage itself had made a false statement and did not disclose material facts or suppressed material facts, then, employee concerned cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future – Employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee must be given to employer – In backdrop of settled legal position and facts of this case, contractual services of petitioner, who had furnished false information and had also suppressed requisite information, have been justifiably terminated by respondents.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Petitioner’s contractual services were terminated by the respondents vide office order dated 26.09.2018. Hence, he has preferred instant writ petition.
2. Bare minimum facts required to be noticed for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on contract basis on 27.10.2016 at GSSS Bathu Tippri. On 10.08.2018 (Annexure A-3), the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain his position in respect of suppression of material information by him concerning the fact that he had been convicted at the time of his appointment on 27.10.2016 and that he had furnished false information regarding this aspect at the relevant time. The petitioner furnished his reply to the notice on 24.08.2018 (Annexure A-4). The respondents were not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, hence, following office order was passed on 26.09.2018 (Annexure A-6), terminating his contractual services:-
It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-
ii) That the office order dated 26.9.2018, passed by Deputy Director Elementary Education, Dharamshala, Kangra for termination of service of applicant may kindly be quashed and set aside.
iii) That the office order dated 27.9.2018 passed by Principal of Government Senior Secondary School Bathu Tippri (GSSS Bathu Tippri) may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
3. Submissions:- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of his appointment, no particular form was made available by the respondents for the purpose of furnishing the affidavit by him. There was neither any specific form nor any particular column requiring the petitioner to give details of any conviction suffered by him in a criminal case as prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-I, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel. Nonetheless, the petitioner on his own had furnished an affidavit on 03.11.2016 in compliance to the office order of appointment of the petitioner dated 27.10.2016 and in that affidavit, the petitioner had categorically stated that “one case is pending in the honourable CBI Court Shimla”. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had misled the Department by giving false affidavit at the time of joining the service, was incorrect. While praying for quashing the office order dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure A-6) with a further prayer to allow the petitioner to join service, reliance was placed upon (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and others).
Opposing the prayer, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in terms of the appointment order dated 27.10.2016, the petitioner was specifically required to furnish a declaration as to whether he was
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of employee.
Appointment obtained by suppressing material fact and filing false declaration – Choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to employer. Such an employ....
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
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
