Allowed

Mallikarjun S/O Sharanappa v. the Cheif Superintendent

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2014WP/201102/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging termination of employment as a Wardboy due to alleged suppression of criminal case involvement. The High Court held that the application form only mandated disclosure of arrest or conviction, neither of which occurred. As the petitioner was acquitted and on bail, no suppression was found, leading to quashing of the termination order and Tribunal's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Order of discharge dated 7.5.2013 is quashed; Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order dated 16.1.2014 quashed.

Mallikarjun S/O Sharanappa Vs the Cheif… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.201102/2014 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

Mallikarjun S/o Sharanappa Age: 32 years, Occ: Wardboy/Jawan R/o Sannur, Tq. & Dist: Gulbarga – 585 101.

¶11

..Petitioner

¶12

(By Sri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate)

¶13

AND :

¶14

The Chief Superintendent of Prison, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga – 585 101.

¶15

..Respondent

¶16

(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Govt. Advocate)

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in application No.4125/2013 dated 16.01.2014 produced at

¶18

¶19

Annexure-C and allow the application filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal in application No.4125/2013 and etc.,

¶20

This petition coming on for Orders, this day, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., delivered the following:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Petitioner was selected and appointed as Jawan (Ward boy) in the month of November, 2012 under respondent. While in service, it was found that the petitioner involved in the criminal cases (Crime No.235/2011 of Vishwavidyalaya Police Station, Gulbarga) and that he had suppressed the said information in Column No.12 of the Proforma application to be filed by the petitioner seeking appointment. According to the respondent, the factum of involving in the criminal case is suppressed by the petitioner. Based on the said alleged suppression, the respondent took decision to

¶24

¶25

terminate the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, he was discharged by the order dated 7.5.2013. The order of discharge was questioned by the petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.4125/2013, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 16.1.2014 vide Annexure-C.

¶26

Column No.12 of the application to be filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Jawan/Ward Boy reads thus:-

¶27

“Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è §AzsÀ£ÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ²PÉëUÉ UÀÄjAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀ."

¶28

English version of the aforementioned clause reads thus:-

¶29

“Particulars to be furnished in case if the applicant is arrested or is convicted in the criminal cases”

¶30

¶31

Thus, what is required to be specified by the applicant was as to whether he was arrested in connection with criminal case or as to whether he is convicted in the criminal case.

¶32

Consequently, it is not necessary for the petitioner to specify as to whether he is involved in the criminal case. In the matter on hand, though the petitioner was involved in the criminal case, he was neither arrested nor convicted. He was on bail. Ultimately, CC.No.1259/2012 arising out of Crime No.235/2011 has ended in acquittal of the accusedpetitioner herein on 20.8.2012.

¶33

Since the petitioner was not required to specify as to his involvement in criminal case, he did not furnish the said information. The application merely mandated the petitioner to furnish information as to his arrest or conviction. The petitioner has

¶34

¶35

promptly said ‘No’ in respect of both the questions, inasmuch as he was neither arrested nor convicted in any criminal case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is absolutely no suppression of fact by the petitioner.

¶36

The Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the petitioner should have disclosed in his application that he is involved in criminal case. Since there is no requirement by the petitioner to disclose about the pendency of criminal case, it is not necessary for the petitioner to disclose the same and hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made:-

¶37

Order of the Tribunal dated 16.1.2014 is quashed. Consequently, the order of discharge, dated 7.5.2013 passed by the respondent (vide

¶38

¶39

Annexure-A14 filed along with the application before the Tribunal) is quashed.

¶40

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

*ck/-

Mallikarjun S/O Sharanappa v. the Cheif Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjun S/O Sharanappa v. the Cheif Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankargouda S/O Hanamantraya Hiregoudar Vs Channappa S/O Nagappa Choudhari

Renuka W/O Alte Ravi Sherikar and Ors. Vs M/S Andhra Karnataka Road Ways and Ors.

Shivaji S/O Saibanna Mane Vs Hanmanth S/O Laxman and Anr.

The Managing Director Vs Smt Hanamanthi

Sri. Raghunath S/O Chandarrao Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sri. Patil Basawaraj S/O Gundappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.