The deliberate suppression of material information in an attestation form constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action.

S.C. Das, J.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f 10.05.1984. Later on, he was appointed to the post of Work Assistant, Vide Memo dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- under the respondent No.3. The offer of appointment contained certain terms and conditions. As per that offer of appointment the petitioner was supposed to submit an attestation form duly filled in and a declaration form etc. Accordingly, he submitted the attestation form wherein there was specific column as to whether any case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling up of attestation form to which he replied in negative, but in fact Agartala Women P.S Case No.72 of 2006, U/S 498A of I.P.C was pending against him under investigation and he surrendered before the Court and got bail on 01.07.2006. The petitioner contended that by mistake he did not mention in the attestation form about the pendency of that case and that it was a bona fide mistake.

The complainant of that criminal case, Smt. Krishna Bhattacharji, wife of younger brother of the petitioner, namely, Sarathi Bhattacharji, submitted a written complaint before the Chief Engineer, P.W.D (respondent No.3) alleging that the petitioner suppressed the fact of the police case and a news also was published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Sambad’ dated 11.07.2007 to that effect and, therefore, the petitioner voluntarily informed respondent No.3 that because of bona fide mistake he did not mention about the pendency of the criminal case in the attestation form, by submitting a petition on 23.07.2007 and a copy of that petition is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

The respondent thereafter, issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his services should not be terminated for suppression of material fact (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and thereafter initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) on the following Article of charge :

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.1.

That Sri Partha Choudhury, (formerly D.R.W employee attached to the G.M., T.S.E.C.L, Tripura, Agartala) now Work Assistant, Office of the Executive Engineer, Store Division, PWD, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, Tripura has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the Government duties in that he has committed a gross misconduct by suppressing the fact of his involvement in a criminal case being No.GR644/06 pending in the Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Court No.5), Agartala, West Tripura at the time of submission of Attestation Form duly filled in supplied with the offer of appointment by the Appointing Authority i.e. the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Tripura, Agartala which is most unbecoming on the part of a Government Servant.

Therefore, the aforesaid activities of Sri Partha Choudhury, (formerly D.R.W employee) now Work Assistant, attract the provision of Rule 3(1) of TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988 which is a good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 11 of the CCS (CC&A), Rules, 1965 for proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the said Rules.”

2. An inquiry was conducted under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the above charge and the inquiry officer submitted report against the petitioner (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) on 22.08.2008 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner that he suppressed material fact has been proved. Thereafter by issuing Memorandum dated 17.10.2008 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent Nos.3, asked the petitioner to submit his representation in respect of the finding of the inquiring authority and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) on 03.12.2008 contending that because of inadvertence he failed to mention in the attestation form that a criminal case was pending against him and he further stated that it