Writ appeal by Union of India challenging Single Judge order reinstating driver found guilty of rash driving. Court held fine offense lacks moral turpitude and called for termination dismissal.
The writ appeal stands rejected; Single Judge order allowing writ petition and directing reinstatement is affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100252 OF 2023 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by JAGADISH TR JAGADISH Location: T R HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
AND:
SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. MALAKAPPA NAYAK AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER MECHANICAL TRANSPORT (OF) 592(I) TPT PI, GS 197676Y, BORDER ROAD ORGANIZATION, PIN-930593, C/O. 56 APO (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION) R/O. AT POST. KANAGAON B.K., TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VITTAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.146507/2020 DATED 06.12.2022 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal by the Union of India, is directed against the order, dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P. No.146507/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 30.10.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner as driver with further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all notional benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement, however, without backwages.
2. Heard Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned Senior Central Government Counsel, appearing for the appellants, and Sri. Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
3. The appellants herein were the respondents,
and the respondent herein was the petitioner before the writ court, and they would be referred to as such.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner, in pursuance of notification issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of driver, submitted an application to respondent No.3. The petitioner was found eligible and suitable for the post of driver and was appointed. Before his appointment, on 05.12.2015, the petitioner was required to submit attestation form wherein one is required to disclose pending case, if any, or punishment suffered. Subsequent to furnishing of attestation form on 05.12.2015, a case against the petitioner was registered under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), for rash and negligent driving and causing simple injury. The petitioner pleaded guilty before the competent authority. Thereafter,
the competent Court on 17.12.2015 convicted the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and levied a fine of Rs.1,500/-. After paying the said fine amount by the petitioner, the proceedings was closed. Subsequently, by order dated 31.12.2015, the petitioner was appointed as driver. Subsequently, even without issuing any notice, the
respondents-authorities terminated the services of the petitioner under impugned order dated 30.10.2018 on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him before his appointment. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.146507/2020 and the learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both the parties, under impugned order allowed the writ petition, quashing the order of termination dated 30.10.2018 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all notional benefits without back wages.
5. Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned Senior Central
Government Counsel, appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants rightly terminated the services
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
of the petitioner since the petitioner had suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner submitted attestation form on 05.12.2015 and the accident had taken place on 30.09.2014. The petitioner failed to disclose the said fact and thereby suppressed the material fact which disentitles the petitioner from seeking employment. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Rule 52 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘1965 Rules’) and submits that the Central Government shall get verified formally the character and antecedents of such a selected person. Therefore, he submits that a person who suppressed the pendency of criminal case would not be entitled for appointment under Union Services. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others1 .
1 (2016) 8 SCC 471
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
6. Per contra , learned counsel Sri.Vitthal S.Teli for
the respondent-petitioner would submit that as on the date of submitting attestation form, no criminal case was pending and he further submits that criminal case was registered only on 17.12.2015 and on the same day the petitioner pleaded guilty and on imposition of fine, the proceedings was closed. Further, learned counsel would submit that the charge against the petitioner was under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC for rash and negligent driving and causing simple injury. Moreover, he submits that the charge against the petitioner would not amount to moral turpitude. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and on going through entire writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
8. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
9. The selection and appointment of the petitioner as driver in the third respondent is not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as driver vide order dated 31.12.2015. Before his appointment, as required, the petitioner submitted attestation form giving information with regard to the following questions:
10. Admittedly, as on the date of submitting the attestation form i.e. on 05.12.2015, there was no pending criminal or civil case against the petitioner. The criminal case under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC for rash and negligent driving and causing simple injury was registered against the petitioner on 17.12.2015 and on the same
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
day, the proceedings was closed on collecting fine of Rs.1,500/-. The offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC would not amount moral turpitude and only if a person involves in the offence which would amount to moral turpitude, would not be entitled or eligible for appointment. In the criminal case, the petitioner neither arrested nor criminal case was registered as on the date of submitting attestation form. The whole purpose of verification of character and antecedents is that a person suitable for the post in question is appointed.
11. In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
Another2 , on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, observation is made that provision may be made that punishment of fine up to a certain limit, say up to Rs.2,000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be his conviction at all for any pupose and all the more for entry into and retention in Government Service .
2 (1996) 4 SCC 17
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8224-DB WA No.100252 of 2023
12. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit
in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KMS/RH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination of services?
Whether suppression of a pending criminal case with a fine up to Rs.2,000 amounts to moral turpitude disentitling appointment under Union Services?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and OthersReferred¶41
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and AnotherReferred¶64
Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another (1996) 4 SCC 17 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Union of India
The Director General BR/EG2
The Commander, 50 Border Roads
Shri Yallappa S/O. Malakappa
S G Pandit
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
