The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the offence, impact of suppression, and the suitability of the incumbent for the post must be considered by the employer before terminating services based on non-disclosure of a conviction. The court emphasized the need for a prudent and reasonable exercise of power by the employer in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Bahri, J.

1. Petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 07.11.2012, 29.01.2014 & 08.03.2016 (Annexures P-5, P-8 & P-11) with further direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Shift Attendant (SA) with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.

2. Vijay Singh Dahiya-petitioner was appointed as Shift Attendant (SA) vide appointment letter dated 28.02.2012 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent-department. Prior to his appointment, petitioner had been convicted under Section 61 (2)/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act vide judgment dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/-. After appointment of the petitioner, verification was got done and it was found that he had been convicted in the above mentioned case. On receipt of this information, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.3. Against his termination, petitioner filed CWP No.1994 of 2013 before this Court and vide order order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P-6) permission was granted to the petitioner to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file an appeal as per rules. Thereafter, petitioner filed appeal (Annexure P-7) against his termination order dated 07.11.2012, which was dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure P-9). Subsequently, he filed a revision dated 10.12.2014, but the same was kept pending. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.24478 of 2015, which was disposed of on 31.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) by giving direction to the respondents to decide the revision petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Finally on 08.03.2016 (Annexure P-11), revision petition was dismissed by the Department. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the instruction (Annexure P-12) and contended that ex-convicts should be able to obtain employment after release from Jail. It was further laid down in these instruction that ex-convicts, who were convicted for commission of offences involving moral turpitude, should not be taken in Government Service. He further contended that the present petitioner is not involved in any case of moral turpitude and he is only convicted for an offence punishable under Section 61(2) 1/14 Excise Act, so his services cannot be terminated. Petitioner has also given an affidavit, along with his application (Annexure P-1) that there was no criminal proceedings pending against him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that while applying for the post of Shift Attendant vide his application (Annexure P-1), petitioner had not mentioned that he was convicted under Section 61 (2) 1/14 Excise Act. Even in the appointment letter, it was specifically mentioned that if, verification report is not satisfactory, he shall be terminated without any notice. Once, the Department came to the know that he had been convicted vide judgment dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure P-4), his services have been rightly terminated vide order dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure P-5) as he had intentionally not disclosed with regard of his conviction in his application and had given false affidavit that he had never been convicted by any Courts of law.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, short question for consideration in this petition is, "whether non-disclosure of fact regarding conviction under Section 61 (2) 1/14 Excise Act, would be sufficient to terminate the services of the petitioner."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 AIR(SC) 1709 wherein, respondent had given false information in the attestation form that no criminal case was pending against him, whereas a case u