The importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and giving an opportunity to explain non-disclosure before termination.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner before this Court was validly selected and appointed as constable with Central Industrial Security Force and given posting at its Unit N.C.L. Indauli (M.P.). However, while he was working on probation, the Senior Commandant of CISF, Shakti Nagar, District Sonebhadra passed an order under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, by which his services were terminated as per Clause 3 of the Attestation Form filed by him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the attestation form which he was required to submit at the time of his appointment with respondent, there was column no. 12 (b) which contained a clause with recital "if you have ever been prosecuted", and was to be answered in either affirmative or negative. However, due to inadvertent mistake, petitioner put an astrick at word “No” instead world ‘Yes’. He further submits that since petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal case instituted against him under Section 294, 352,506,509, 34 IPC , he thought that it was not necessary to refer to the prosecution case in which he was acquitted wayback in the year 2010. In the said case he claimed that petitioner had been acquitted much prior to his application submitted against vacancy in question. He further submits that the order in question though is termination simpliciter in nature taking recourse to the provision of subrule 4 of Rule 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, but lifting the veil the foundation for passing the order has been non disclosure of criminal case in which petitioner was prosecuted sometimes back, though acquitted in the year 2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein Supreme Court was dealing with the matter in which an employee who had not made such disclosure was also acquitted .

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that non disclosure of criminal case in which petitioner was prosecuted was well within his knowledge and non disclosure thereof would be taken to mean that he obtained appointment by misrepresentation. He submits that this is like a snatching of an appointment and dislodging other eligible candidate who might been possessed good and clean character for having never been even prosecuted in any criminal case.

6. It is further argued that it is a discretion of employer to retain a candidate or not if a candidate has not disclosed criminal antecedents in the column meant for the purpose and later on found to be having criminal antecedents. He further submits that even in Avtar Singh's case (supra) this discretion of employer has been retained and candidate even though if is acquitted in the criminal case, cannot make a rightful claim to appointment.

7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the respndent that the petitioner was still on probation, and therefore, his service could have been terminated without assigning any reason .

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and their arguments raised across the bar, the fact that I find to be emerging out from the pleadings is that services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with in view of Clause 3 of the attestation form. Clause 3 of the attestation form declares that in the event any information furnished is found to be false or concealed then services can be terminated. The order of termination is absolutely silent qua non disclosure of a particular fact to the department. The order if was passed was based upon paragraph 3 of the attestation form, it ought to have detailed out reason for taking such action. Having not assigned any reason, a mere reliance upon Clause 3 would not do the needful. The order of terminatio