The petitioner was not guilty of suppression or concealment regarding his criminal background since he accurately answered the application form query, justifying his reinstatement.

Judgment

Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.:- The case of the petitioner is crystallized in the order putting respondents i.e. High Court and the District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda to notice. The order dated 23.07.2019 is as follows:

“Contends that in the form prescribed by the Society for Centralized Recruitment of Staff in Subordinate Courts a question was asked of the petitioner; “have you ever been convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude”. His answer was in the negative. After his selection and joining on the post of Clerk in the Sessions Division, Bathinda, the petitioner was asked to furnish an affidavit that he had never been convicted. The affidavit is on record.

In the course of background check, it was discovered that the petitioner was an accused in FIR No. 34 dated 06.02.2008 under Sections 307 , 341, 323, 148 and 149 IPC , Police Station City-I, Mansa.

The petitioner has been relieved during the probationary period by order dated 22.05.2019 for the reason that he concealed the fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bathinda has observed that the petitioner has not mentioned anywhere in the application as well in the affidavit dated 06.12.2018 submitted by him at the time of joining that he was named in the FIR.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was never asked to divulge that anything more than what the form required and, therefore, he has not concealed any fact which was required of him to be disclosed in the form and on affidavit.

Another argument is that the order is stigmatic in nature.

Issue notice of motion to the respondents, returnable by 05.08.2019.

Notice re: stay.”

2. The question which falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner serving as a probationer Clerk in the Subordinate Court in Bathinda is guilty of concealing the facts regarding involvement in a criminal case. The authority competent to terminate the services of a probationer Clerk in Sessions Division, Bathinda is the District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda – respondent No.2, who passed an order on 22.05.2019 dispensing with the services of the petitioner and directing him to handover the charge of his post and his identity card in the office and to be relieved. This order is impugned in this petition.

3. The District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda has held that the petitioner concealed the fact regarding involvement in a criminal case and he has not mentioned anywhere in his application form as well as in the affidavit dated 06.12.2018 submitted by him at the time of joining or later on that he had been named as an accused in the FIR mentioned in the motion order. He took the case as one of suppression of material facts and went on to hold that the incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature that may adjudge him unsuitable for the post.

4. The brief facts may be adverted to. The petitioner’s name was recommended by the High Court on 30.11.2018 for appointment as Clerk in the Sessions Division. An offer of appointment dated 05.12.2018 was issued to him on usual terms and conditions. The petitioner submitted his arrival report on 06.12.2018 (Afternoon) along with necessary documents called in his appointment letter. He was posted as Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda.

5. Thereafter, office requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa through its letter dated 23.01.2019 to get the character and antecedents of the petitioner verified from the police authorities. The Senior S