Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Giridhari Bag – Appellant
Versus
Commandant, Orissa State Armed Police (OSAP), Koraput & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Civil (OAC) No. 737 of 2005
Decided On : 27-01-2023
SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION - REINSTATEMENT - CRIMINAL CASES - POLICE DEPARTMENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - AVTAR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA - RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. & ANR. V. ANIL KANWARIYA - EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - WENDESBURY PRINCIPLES - DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY - MALA FIDES - PERVERSE FINDINGS - NO EVIDENCE - REASONABLE PERSON TEST - LIMITED JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - DISMISSAL ORDER - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste person, applied for the post of Sepoy in the OSAP 3rd Battalion, Koraput. He was found suitable and appointed as Sepoy pursuant to Appointment Order No.119 dated 5.1.2002. While undergoing training, he received a letter dated 21.5.2002 stating that there were pending criminal cases against him. He was removed from service on 21.5.2002. The Petitioner approached the authorities for re-consideration of his case for re-employment, but his representation was rejected. He filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of removal and the rejection of his representation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of his involvement in four criminal cases at the time of submitting the Verification Roll. The Court held that this amounted to a suppression of material facts and that the Petitioner was not entitled to an appointment or reinstatement. The Court also held that the order of termination was not in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Petitioner had not been given an opportunity to show cause before the order was passed. However, the Court observed that in the event there was a contingency in not continuing the Petitioner in service upon verification of the character and antecedent finding material against him, a bare minimum show cause notice should have been issued to the Petitioner and only after giving opportunity of show cause based on concrete material itself a decision as appropriate could have been taken.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding his involvement in criminal cases amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to an appointment or reinstatement despite his suppression of material facts? 3. Whether the order of termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding his involvement in criminal cases amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which held that an employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service. 2. The Court held that the Petitioner was not entitled to an appointment or reinstatement despite his suppression of material facts. The Court relied on the decision in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya, which held that an employee who has obtained an appointment by suppressing material facts or making false statements cannot claim a right to continue in service. 3. The Court held that the order of termination was not in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Petitioner had not been given an opportunity to show cause before the order was passed. However, the Court observed that in the event there was a contingency in not continuing the Petitioner in service upon verification of the character and antecedent finding material against him, a bare minimum show cause notice should have been issued to the Petitioner and only after giving opportunity of show cause based on concrete material itself a decision as appropriate could have been taken.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Rath, J. - Originally the Application was filed in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court for its disposal at this end.
2. The Applicant (Petitioner) through the Original Application (presently Writ Petition) involves the following prayer :-
'I. The orders passed under Annexure-2 and under Annexure-4 by the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 be quashed.
II. The Respondents be directed to reinstate in service retrospectively w.e.f. the date of his removal i.e. 21.05.02 with all consequential service and pecuniary benefits.
III. And pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'
3. Background involving the case is the Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste person. After passing Matriculation/Board of Secondary Education Certificate Course in the year 1998, being unable to undertake further education, the Petitioner sought for an employment. Coming to know of an advertisement for the post of regular recruitment of Sepoy by the Selection Board at OSAP 3rd Battalion, Koraput, the Petitioner applied for the said post. Based on recruitment process and interview, he was found to be suitable and appointed as Sepoy pursuant to Appointment Order No.119 dated 5.1.2002 and joined the post. Copy of such Appointment Order appears at Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. While the Petitioner was undergoing training after his appointment pursuant to his appointment letter, he received a letter dated 21.5.2002 issued from the Office of Respondent/O.P.1 that there is pendency of some criminal cases involving the Petitioner in Town P.S. Case No.203 dated 29.12.99, No.36 dated 19.4.2000, No.59 dated 3.4.2001 and No.72 dated 20.4.2001 under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged therein that though such criminal proceedings were subjudiced in the court of law at the relevant point of time, in the inquiry involving a verification process by the Competent Authority, it was found that the Petitioner suppressed all such involvements in the desired Application, further on the basis of confidential report observing the Candidate is an anti-social and a criminal and it is on the basis of such report, the Petitioner was removed from service on 21.5.2002. Copy of order of removal appears at Annexure-2 of the Writ Petition. It is claimed, after removal of service, the Petitioner approached several times even on production of certified copies of orders of acquittal in his favour and finding no respite, he was compelled to make a representation to the Authority on 5.6.2004 for re-consideration of his case for re-employment in the post of Sepoy. Copy of representation appears at Annexure-3. Pleading further discloses, the representation of the Petitioner was finally rejected and the rejection order was communicated to the Petitioner, vide Memo No.4255 dated 20.11.2004. Copy of such rejection order appears at Annexure-4.
4. Mr.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the above factual background advanced his submission that the order of removal from service, vide Annexure-2 is a termination simplicitor and passed without any inquiry further in the involvement of the Petitioner. The order is also alleged to have been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. Taking into account the provision in the CCA Rules, Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner claimed, there cannot be any order of termination from service of a candidate already recruited through regular Selection Board if with a stigma in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged, the termination order is not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also without application of mind and has been passed hastily. On the aspect of criminal cases pending against the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner through the pleadings in Annexure-5 to 8 series submitted, SC No.35/2000 was tried by the C.J.M.
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
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 th....
Service matter - Criminal Cases pending - Order of removal - Quash of - While passing order of termination for giving false information, the employer may take note of special circumstances of case if....
Probationary employees may be terminated for violating appointment terms, including misrepresenting criminal history, without requiring formal procedural safeguards.
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
Suppression of material information in the attestation form justifies termination under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and amounts to moral turpitude.
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
