CHURENDRA KUMAR DHRUV Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.11.2009 {sic 29.07.2010} (Annexure - P/2), by which, the petitioner has been terminated from service.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, participated in the selection process and after completing the due selection process by order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Constable (General Duty). Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the service. However, all of a sudden by order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has been terminated from the service on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by fine of Rs. 100/- in crime No. 117/2009 at Police Station Sihawa, Dhamtari, under the provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act and the said fact has not been mentioned by the petitioner at the time of filling the attestation form. Thereafter, the petitioner made several requests including the representations before the respondent authorities and requested for condoning the mistake, which yielded no result.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has been convicted under the provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act; whereas, in column 12 (I) of the attestation form, the petitioner mentioned that "No" and he has not disclosed the facts properly. Thus, the petitioner has concealed the relevant facts and, as such, the petitioner was liable to be removed from service on account of concealment of the relevant facts, as required in the attestation form.