JEASON K.L. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.9.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) in O.A.320/2014. The petitioner had approached the CAT challenging his termination from service by the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a Civilian Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade) on 1.7.2013 on being selected after a written examination and interview. After he was provisionally selected, he was appointed on regular basis on the above date. Thereafter he was on probation for two years from the date of his joining service. While so, on 14.12.2013 by Annexure A1 dated 12.12.2013 he was terminated from service. The said order does not state any reason except that the termination was in exercise of the power under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965. Since the petitioner was not aware of the reason for his termination he tried to ascertain the reason and later came to know that he had been terminated for the reason that he had not disclosed in his attestation form the fact that he had been involved in crime No: 1852/2011 of Chalakudy Police Station under Section 118(e) of Kerala Police Act and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In CC1562/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy he had been imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/ - on 28.11.2011. However, when he submitted his attestation form on 18.6.2013, he stated that he had not been convicted by a court of law. According to the petitioner, his conviction as stated above was not for any offence involving moral turpitude. The same was only for a traffic offence in which the petitioner had pleaded guilty. Therefore he had not considered it necessary to disclose the said fact while filling up his attestation form, the same being only a petty offence. For the above reason, it is contended that his termination from service on the basis of the said crime was unjustified and was liable to be interfered with and set aside by the CAT.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was contested by the respondents. According to the respondents the petitioner had been appointed only on provisional basis subject to the verification of his character and antecedents through the Police authorities. It was a specific condition of his appointment that, if on verification it was found that wrong information had been furnished by the individual, he was liable to be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. Accordingly the attestation form submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the District Magistrate for getting the verification report. Thereupon it was reported that the petitioner was involved in a crime and he was convicted as stated above. Therefore, in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, he was terminated for having submitted false information for the purpose of securing appointment. It was also stated that the respondents were not in a position to retain an employee with criminal antecedents. The termination was for the reason that relevant information had been suppressed.

(3.) The CAT considered the respective contentions of the parties, referred to the decisions on the point and held that, non -disclosure of conviction of the petitioner in his attestation form was fatal and was sufficient justification for the termination of his probation. Accordingly the O.A has been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.