RAPHY XAVIER K V Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P - 5 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O. A. No. 758/2000. The petitioner herein was the applicant in the said Original Application which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext. P - 5 order.

(2.) As per Ext. P2 Memorandum dated 9th May 1997 the third respondent offered to the petitioner a temporary post of Assistant Light keeper (S.S.) in the Department of Lighthouses and Lightships. The terms of appointment were specifically stated in Ext. P - 2. As per Clause.1 of Ext. P2 the petitioner would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment, which could be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. As per Clause.6, if any declaration made or information furnished by the candidate proves to be false or if the candidate is found to have wilfully suppressed any material information, he will be liable to be removed from service. As per Clause.7, if the petitioner accepts the offer on the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext. P - 2 he should communicate his acceptance to the thud respondent and report for duty on or before 30th May 1997. The petitioner accepted the offer contained in Ext. P - 2 and submitted the joining report on 17tb May 1997. Copy of the joining report has been produced as Ext. P - 4. In Ext. P - 4 the petitioner stated that the terms and conditions laid down in Ext. P - 2 Memorandum were acceptable to him and accordingly he was reporting for duty. In Ext. P - 4 he also furnished the detailed information required in connection with his appointment. One such information required was whether there was any case pending against him in any court of law at the time of filling up the Attestation Form. To the said query, in column 12 (1) of the Attestation Form the petitioner answered 'No'. As per column 12 (1) if the answer to the above question was 'Yes', the petitioner was obliged to give full particular of the case / arrest / detention / fine / conviction / sentence / punishment etc. and / or the nature of the case pending in the Court / University / Educational. Authority etc. at the time of filling up the form. Since the answer to the query in column 12 (1) was 'No', the petitioner did not give any further particulars. in column 12 (1). At the beginning of the Attestation Form there were the following warnings:

(3.) As per Office Order dated 24th July 1997 of the third respondent the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Lightkeeper (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis with effect from 1.5th June 1997 on the terms and conditions communicated to him vide Memorandum No. 5 - E(2) / 81, dated 9th May 1997 (Ext. P - 2) and accepted by him. Subsequently, as per Ext. P - 1 Office Order dated 12th May 2000 the petitioner's services were terminated by the third respondent. In Ext. P - 1 it is stated that the petitioner while filling in the forms for verification of character and antecedents failed to give the correct information and that an adverse report has been received against him. Ext. P - 1 order was passed by the third respondent in exercise of his powers as disciplinary authority and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order vide Memorandum dated 9th May 1997 (Ext. P - 2) and accepted by him. Challenging Ext. P - 1 Office Order dated 12th May 2000 the petitioner filed O.A. No. 758/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakularn Bench. The Tribunal found that at the time when the applicant filled up the Attestation Form there were two criminal cases pending against him. Before the Tribunal the applicant did not dispute the fact that at the time of filling up the Attestation Form two criminal cases were actually pending against him. The stand of the applicant was that since the complaints were frivolous, he did not expect any conviction and he was advised by local authorities that he need mention the case only if he was punished and hence he wrote 'No' against column 12 (1) of the Attestation Form. The Tribunal held that in view of the categoric admission of the applicant himself that he wrote in the Attestation Form that no criminal case was pending when actually two criminal cases were pending against him, the failure to issue a notice to show cause prior to Ext. P - 1 order did not violate the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was of the view that in terms of the conditions of appointment accepted by the petitioner, his services were liable to be terminated and that Ext. P - 1 order was legal and valid. Accordingly the Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal as per Ext. P - 5 order.