Dismissed

Virendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2014WPS/2630/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a constable challenging his discharge from service. The court held that concealment of material information regarding pending criminal cases by the applicant before appointment rendered him unsuitable for service, validating the termination order without violating natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 31-03-2012 upholding discharge of petitioner from service allowed.

Virendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

$aingia Bem§y

¶2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG). w. P. (S) No ......2 §§9J2012

¶3

PETITIOIQJERE

¶4

k.
g
u u) vcs«i. ‘ ‘ .‘
. _, ...... w
¢
j». 3‘
g. “H.
.n“‘igb‘i” . ........
‘.....
wé

¶5

Virendra Kumar S/OSri Shiv Kumar Village — Bindwalia , P/OKaithwalia , Ghazipur - U.P. Posted as constab!e Commandent, 9m BN, Chh. S. Ba! ,^Dantewara.

¶6

RESPONDENTSQ

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through the secretary , Department of Home Chhattisgarh Government at Raipur. (Chhattis Garh).

¶8

Commandant , 7‘“ BN , C.A.I=. Bhnai Chhattis Garh.

¶9

Commandant , 9’“ BN ,^Chhattisgarh Arms Force ,^Dantewara ,^Karli ,^Chhattis Garh.

¶10

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS AS DEEM FIT. @RTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER.

¶11

As stated In the cause title above.

¶12

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH : BILASPUR

¶14

W.P.(Sl No.2630 of 2012

¶15

PETITIONER

¶16

RESPQNDENTS

¶17

Virendra Kumar Versus

¶18

State of

¶19

Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶20

Present :- Shri Basant Kaiwartya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate for the State.

¶21

ORAL ORDFR

¶22

(Passed^onthis 4th day ofAugust, 2014)

¶23

Heard learned tounsel for the parties.

¶24

. The petitioner has chaltenged the legality and validity of the order dated 31—03-2012 (Annexure P—5), whereby the Commandant, 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Dantewara, Karli, Chhattisgarh has discharged/terminated him from the services on the ground that because of the facts disclosed in verification of his antecedent, he is found unsuitable for Government service.

¶25

. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 03-12~2009 vide Annexure R—S. He was sent for training to Counter Terrorism & Jungle Warfare College, Kanker. At the time of joining the services, the petitioner^was made to fill up the verification form in which Column No.12 concerning his antecedents was to be filled up. The said Column 12 reads thus:-

¶26

“12.($) mmwmnfanas‘ww wwmmwswmwm intensimmgW—cafaawsmw WWW‘éWWWWew mmwmwsmmnwwft mwmmmmmmsaa—sw

Superintendent of Police informed the appointing authority of the petitioner^{thatonecaseforoffenceunderSections147,} 148, 149, 447, 448, 353, 352, 504 & 506 Part il of the IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 has been registered against the petitioner and the charge-sheet has been filed. On receiving this verification, the petitioner has been removed from service without issuing any show-cause notice or giving any opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned couselg for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been removed from services in violation of principles of natural justice; when the offence is said to be committed, the petitioner was in Chhattisgarh, therefore, it was a false case registered against him; the petitioner^{hasalreadybeenacquitted} in the said case and that he was never sent to jail in connection with the said offence.

¶31

Learned State counsel would oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner did not disclose about the registration or pendency^{ofacriminalcaseagainsthim.Thisfactcametothenoticeof} the respondents when the Superintendent of Police, Ghajipur sent information about the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the circular issued by the State Government on 20.12.2007 particularly para 6 thereof to submit that even in cases where information was not supplied by the candidate but the offence does not involve moral turpitude, the Police department is required to submit a report using its discretion

¶34

¶35

about the eligibility or ineligibility. Placing further reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar’ and the^{decisionofthisCourt} in Churendra Kumar Dhruw^{v.StateofC.G.&Othersz,} it has been strongly urged that the petitioners^{havingneverbeenconvictedfor} committing any offence involving moral turpitude and the proceeding^underSection 107/116 (3)^oftheCr.P.C. being not in the nature of a substantive criminal offence, the petitioners are entitled to gentinue in the service and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶36

, On the other hand,^{learnedStatecounselwould} place^relianceon the judgment rendered^{bytheSupremeCourtinUnionofIndia&} Ors. V. Bipad Bhanjan Gayena^{tosubmitthatcases} in which the candidate has committed^{offencenotinvolvingmortalturpitudebut} has disciosed the same are different than the cases in which material information^{wasconcealedorwithheld.} Learned counsel would submit that^{insuchcasesthe} principle^{thattheoffencedoes} not involve moral turpitude^{hasnoapplication,} therefore, the said part^{ofcirculardated20.12.2007} relied by the petitioners is not applicable in the present^cases.

¶37

“It is true

¶38

. The Supreme Courtⁱⁿ Sandeep^Kumar (supra),^observedthat that in the application^{formtherespondentdidnotmentionthathewas} involved in a criminal case^{underSection325/34,IPC.} Probably he did not mention this^{outoffearthatifhedidsohewouldautomaticallybe}

¶39

2011 AIR scw 3601 2012 (4) CGLJ 381 2008 AIR scw 4058

WWW/m

disqualified.” The Supreme Court further observed that^“at any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity^{orrape,andhence} a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."

¶44

Although the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) has been referred to larger^Bench, but since thereafter, the Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttarancha/ and Others", it has been held that issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is no more res integra. The question is not whether the appiicant suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal is case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency.^Thecase pending^againsta person^{mightnotinvoivemoral} turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. ln fact, the information sought^{bytheemployerifnotdisclosed} as required, would dennitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. 11. According to the Supreme Court a person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead^{barofanylawtofrustrate} the lawful trial by a competent Court. ln such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons^{violatingthelawcannotbe} permitted^{tourgethattheiroffence} cannot be subjected to inquiry,^trial or^{investigation} Mde:^UnionofIndia v. Major Genera/ Madan Lal Yadav^{andLi/yThomas} v. Union of India). Nor can a person claim any right^{arisingoutofhisownwrongdoing.} (jus ex injuria non oritur).

¶45

4 (2013)'9^SCC363

¶46

.. ..,...»,Wmwwwmwwwq

¶47

¶48

In view of the above, since admittedly the petitioner has concealed material information regarding his antecedent and character, he is not entitled to continue in service and his discharge from service during probation^{doesnotsufferfromanyinmmityorillegality‘Likewise,since} the impugned order does not cast any stigma, but the same is outcome of the information about his antecedent, which he withheld from the employer and the petitioner^was otherwise a probationer, there is no Violation of principles of natural justice.

¶49

13‘ Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to 'k

¶50

be and is hereby dismissed.

¶51

4‘

¶52

Sd//— ' Prashant^KumarMishifa Judge

Virendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banderam Bairagi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Smt. Anita Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

S.m.a.yasini Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Nirmala Rawate Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Pokhan Lal Dhangarh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sarita Tiwari Vs State of C.G. and Ors.