IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Vembati Ranjith Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 40829 of 2018
Decided on : 05-06-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 290, 324, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 265 E - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4, 9 - Telangana Sate & Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 10(e), (a)(i), 17 (ii) - Appointed on Compassionate Grounds - Involvement in criminal case - Terminated from services - Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents 2 to 5 in terminating petitioner's service as bad, arbitrary, illegal and direct respondents to reinstate petitioner forthwith with all consequential service - Held, Court opines that Petitioner's appointment was not as per Rule 10(a)(i) of TS & SS Rules, 1996 which deals with temporary appointment, including appointment by direct recruitment/appointment by transfer or promotion in view of fact that Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in existing vacancy - Petitioner had been terminated for suppression of information as per orders of commissioner or Police - Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in terminating the petitioner’s service as bad, arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice by setting aside the Order C No.2848/A1/2016-18, C.O.No.2075 of 2018 dated 27.10.2018 of the 5th Respondent and consequential order C No.E1/175/2018-RO No. 744/2018 dated 29.10.2018 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential service benefits by treating the interregnum period as on duty for all purposes including salary.
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) Petitioner’s father died while working as Constable in Warangal Rural and the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant on Compassionate Grounds in Warangal District Police Office against roaster point (73-OC) vide order dated 03.10.2016, SP, Warangal and the petitioner was subsequently working in the office of DIG Range Office, Warangal.
b) The Petitioner had been terminated from services by the orders of the Commissioner of Police dated 27.10.2018 for alleged involvement in a criminal case u/s. 290, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Nallbelli PS during the time of petitioner’s appointment.
c) By another consequential order, dated 29.10.2018 from the office of IGP, North Zone, Telangana petitioner had been terminated from services which are bad, arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner had not been given notice before terminating the petitioner from services.
d) Moreover, the criminal charges against the petitioner have been acquitted in CC No. 440 of 2016 and the same was closed on the file of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Narsampet vide its judgment 08.07.2017 and the petitioner was released on probation of good conduct and no punishment is pending against the petitioner and hence the same was not mentioned during the petitioner’s appointment into service.
e) The Petitioner since his employment into service has been discharging his services to the utmost satisfaction of the petitioners superiors and terminating petitioner on irrelevant grounds is unjust and unreasonable, as the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed.
4. The case of the Respondents, in brief, is as follows:
a) The Petitioner has been appointed into service as Junior Assistant on Temporary Basis vide C.No.2842/A1/2016 D.O.No.2753/2016 dated 03.10.2016 and reported to duty on 07.10.2016, under compassionate grounds of Rule 10(a)(i) of TS State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and is subjected to be terminated without any prior notice and without assigning any reason, subject to verification and outcome of his character and antecedents.
b) On Verification, it was found out that the Petitioner was involved in the Criminal Case as A1 in Cr.No 72/2016 u/s 290, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Nallbelli PS and charge sheet was filed on 17.07.2016 vide CC.No.440 of 2016 dated 08.07.2017. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Narsampet passed judgment and the accused had made an application of “Plea Bargaining” and since the victim refused to take the compensation, the Petitioner was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
c) The case had been disposed of under section 265 E of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Petitioner had supressed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case at the time of submitting the attestation form even though, the petitioner was involved in the criminal case prior to his appointment.
d. The Petitioner being appointed on temporary basis subject to the outcome of his character and antecedents, the petitioner was terminated from services as his continuance in Government Service is unjust and improper, when the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal c
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastav
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya (2017(1) SCC 768)
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
Suppression of material information in the attestation form justifies termination under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and amounts to moral turpitude.
Probationary employees may be terminated for violating appointment terms, including misrepresenting criminal history, without requiring formal procedural safeguards.
The judgment established the importance of considering the impact of suppression of information on the suitability for a job, the need for adherence to natural justice principles in dismissal cases, ....
Trivial suppression of petty criminal conviction (Rs.100 fine) in attestation form by compassionate probationer does not justify automatic termination; employer must assess suitability impact proport....
Termination for suppression of petty criminal case (acquitted) quashed due to no show cause notice, undue delay post-verification, failure to assess post nature/duties per Supreme Court guidelines, a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.