Chandra Shekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

SMT NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:29953

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1182 of 2018

¶7

1 - Chandra Shekhar Sahu S/o Anandi Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kargadih, Police Station Utai, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Region Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Region Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Division No. 1 Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	:	Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate
		holding the brief of Shri B.P.
		Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State	:	Shri Pramod Ramteke, P.L.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

02.07.2025

-2-

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order (ANNEXURE P1).

¶21

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶22

10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Shakuntala Sahu, who was posted as a regular employee in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, SubDivision No.1, Durg, died in harness on 19.4.2017. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment, which was granted vide order dated 24.6.2017 against a vacant and sanctioned post of unskilled labour. He would contend that after joining service, during character verification, it was found that an FIR for the commission of an offence under Sections 457 & 380 of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Utai, District Durg, and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner was appointed on a compassionate basis against a Class-IV post. He would also submit that on 20.12.2017, respondent No.3 terminated the services of the petitioner solely on this ground.

¶24

3

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. , (2016) 8 SCC 471.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an FIR for the commission of serious offenses was registered against the petitioner, and this fact was not disclosed, therefore, respondent No. 3 took a decision to terminate his services.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶28

The petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground against a sanctioned and vacant post of unskilled labour. However, the petitioner failed to disclose the registration of an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the IPC. In the character verification form, the petitioner did not disclose the fact of the pendency of the criminal case.

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra) , while dealing with a similar issue in paragraph 38, held as under:-

¶30

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus :

¶31

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or

¶32

-4-

¶33

after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶34

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

¶35

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

¶36

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

¶37

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

¶38

5

¶39

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

¶40

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

¶41

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

¶42

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

¶43

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order

¶44

-6-

¶45

cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

¶46

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

¶47

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

¶48

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

¶49

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of

¶50

7

¶51

the fact must be attributable to him.”

¶52

A similar proposition was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar , (2018) 18 SCC 733 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13, 14 & 16 as follows:-

¶53

''13. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to nondisclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

¶54

In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra) ( Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and anr. Vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685], specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal

¶55

-8-

¶56

in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of compromise.

¶57

16. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.''

¶58

In the matter of Mohd. Imran vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 5 to 6, as follows:-

¶59

''5. Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that my apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in

¶60

9

¶61

judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self- improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however, depend on the fact situation of a case.

¶62

That the expression "moral turpitude" is not capable of precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana , (1996) 4 SCC 17 opining :

¶63

"12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity."

¶64

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Bunty

¶65

reported in (2020) 17 SCC 654 has held in paragraph 12, as follows:-

¶66

“13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that in case of acquittal in a criminal case is based on the benefit of the doubt or any other technical reason. The employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/ continuance in service. The decision taken by the Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been faulted by the Division Bench."

¶67

-10-

¶68

In the instant case, the petitioner failed to disclose the registration of a criminal case against him while filling the verification form.

¶69

The offences registered against the petitioner are not of a grievous nature. The petitioner was appointed as an unskilled labourer on a compassionate basis. Since he was appointed as an unskilled labour, credentials such as integrity, strict discipline, sincerity etc. are not expected to the same extent as from officers/employees holding executive, judicial or security force posts.

¶70

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a strict view for candidates/employees of higher posts or forces. However, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as an unskilled labourer, therefore, the respondents ought to have taken a more liberal view.

¶71

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 20.12.2017 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, adopting a liberal approach.

¶72

The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before respondent authorities after reinstatement claiming therein arrears of salary. The respondent authorities, after verifying the fact whether the petitioner was gainfully employed somewhere or not, may consider the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary.

¶73

11

¶74

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petition is disposed of.

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶77

Nimmi

Chandra Shekhar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Akanksha Singh Gehalot Vs Antriksh Gehalot

Seikh Aslam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munni Bai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirmal Chandra Sarkar (Died) Through Lrs Vs The Managing Director, Food Corporation Of India

Ku. Samiksha Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh