Dismissed

Union of India, represented by The Director General, v. Nuthana Mahalakshmi N.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2014WP/30840/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to set aside a termination order. The termination arose from the employee's failure to disclose an arrest which preceded her service joining but resulted in acquittal after a trial. The Court held the Tribunal correctly relied on precedent to condone the incident as a minor indiscretion rather than willf

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The termination order set aside by the Tribunal stands affirmed. Miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Union of India, represented by The Director… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30840 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 08.1.2014, in O.A.No.618 of 2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal).

¶5

2. Respondent No.1 herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to order, dated 9.5.2013, of petitioner No.5 herein/respondent No.5 intimating that her services would be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on her or as the case may be tendered to her without assigning any reasons and to set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the petitioners herein/respondents to allow her to continue to work as Gramin Dak Sevak/Mail Packer, Veeravalli S.O., Vijayawada Division with all consequential benefits.

¶6

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the aforementioned Original Application setting aside the termination order, dated 9.5.2013, of petitioner No.5 herein/respondent No.5. Challenging the same, Government filed the present writ petition.

¶7

4. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant is a graduate belonging to OBC community. In response to a notification issued on 22.8.2012 for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak/Mail Packer, Veeravalli S.O., she applied for the said post and was selected on 26.9.2012. She joined on 01.12.2012. Some incident had taken place at her brother’s house i.e., a quarrel between her brother and his wife leading to a complaint that was made by her brother’s wife under Section 498-A I.P.C. for which the applicant was arrested on 7.1.2013 and she was immediately released on bail. Later, the police filed charge sheet in C.C.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur. After conducting trial, she was acquitted. A termination notice was issued on 9.5.2013 without assigning any reasons. The

¶8

allegation levelled against her is that she did not inform to the department about her arrest and thereby, she violated Rule 8(1) and (2) of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 (for short, “the Rules”) and the said fact was not disclosed in her letter, dated 01.6.2013, even after the notice of termination and thus, suppressed the said fact.

¶9

5. The antecedents of the applicant were called for before her joining into service. The incident of criminal case took place on 30.12.2012. Admittedly, her arrest took place after she joined in service. Since this information was suppressed by her, learned counsel representing the Assistant Solicitor General contended that basing on her conduct, her services have been terminated exercising the Rules and hence, he prays to admit the writ petition.

¶10

6. The Tribunal, relying upon a decision reported in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar wherein it is held at para Nos.8 and 12 as under:

¶11

“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age, young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

¶12

12. It is true that in the application form, the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.”

¶13

In the present case also, the applicant was shown as an accused basing on the report given by her sister-in-law. Since the applicant has been residing separately, the question of her harassment may not arise. That is the reason why the Criminal Court acquitted her. For no fault of her, she was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a willful or wanton suppression of her arrest to the concerned authorities. When her antecedents were called for before her appointment, they were shown to be satisfactory and therefore, basing on those antecedents, she was given appointment. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record and placing reliance on Sandeep Kumar’s case (1 supra),

¶14

rightly set aside the termination order, dated 09.5.2013, of petitioner No.5 herein. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, in the absence of any illegal or incorrect finding, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

Date: 29.10.2014 AMD

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶20

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.30840 OF 2014