Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The appellant through instant second appeal is seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Mansa, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration to the effect that impugned order dated 24/25.06.2003 passed by District Manager, FCI-FSD on the basis of police report dated 01.03.2002, terminating his service with immediate effect under clause 14 of H.Qrs. Letter No.IR-(L) 18(20)/94 Vol.II dated 18.02.1997 is illegal and against the service rules and with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to withdraw the order of termination and reinstate the appellant-plaintiff with benefits, from the date of termination till the date of actual payment of arrears. At the same time, prayer is also made in the instant second appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa vide which the first appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

2. Case of the appellant before the learned trial Court was that he was appointed to the post of worker/employee/employee handling labourer in the respondent corporation vide order dated 16/18.10.1997. Pursuant to his selection, the appellant-plaintiff joined his duties w.e.f. 01.04.1997. However, vide order dated 24/25.06.2003 passed by respondent no.4, his services were terminated with immediate effect on the ground of his past conviction prior to his entry in the employment of the respondent corporation. No departmental inquiry was conducted in his matter. Consequently, the appellant preferred a suit before the learned trial Court for redressal of his grievances. The suit was amended after the death of the appellant-plaintiff and his legal heirs were brought on record.

3. Notice was issued to the respondents-defendants. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein preliminary objections were taken regarding locus standi of the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the service of the appellant was terminated in terms of clause-14of Head Quarters letter dated 18.02.1997 as character and antecedents of the appellant were found to be bad in the verification report. It was also averred that the appellant-plaintiff also suppressed material facts from the respondents pertaining to his conviction under Sections 324, 148, 149 of IPC and on that account, he was not entitled to any relief. On merits, similar objections were raised by the respondents.

4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff vide judgement and decree dated 08.02.2005 while observing that he failed to disclose the factum of his conviction and sentence at the time of his entry in the employment. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which was also met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2005. Both the aforesaid judgments and decrees are under challenge in the present second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vociferously contends that the appellant was working with the contractor of the respondent corporation since 1987 and he was later regularized in the year 1997. In the Bio-Data form, there was not even a single column asking for the antecedents of the applicants. He further contends that merely a conviction of any person in a criminal case cannot be made basis for termination of his services if that conviction does not result from moral turpitude.

6. Per contra learned counsel for respondents submits that the appellant-plaintiff willfully concealed his criminal antecedents at the time of seeking employment and he secured his appointment by suppressing material information qua his conviction in FIR No.132 of 16.07.1980 registered at Police Station- Bhikhi under Sections 324, 148, 149 of IPC, whereby, he wa