SUNIL KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the orders dated 03.12.2012 and 28.12.2012(Annexures - 9 and 10 respectively) whereby the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOC' in short) has rejected his candidature for selection as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak ('RGGLV' in short) after finding that at the time of making the application for selection, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case pertaining to the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC wherein, charges had been framed against him by the Sessions Court at Jaunpur, but this material fact was deliberately concealed by him.

(2.) Put in a nutshell, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the IOC issued an advertisement on 26.03.2011 for selection of RGGLV at various locations including Bhuluwahi, District Jaunpur in open category. The petitioner submitted his application for selection as RGGLV for the said location at Bhuluwahi; and got selected in the draw of lots on 19.10.2011. However, before further steps were taken for award of dealership to the petitioner, a complaint was made by one Km. Akanksha Singh pointing out, inter alia, that the petitioner Shri Sunil Kumar Tripathi and his brother Shri Avadhesh Tripathi were involved in a pending criminal case bearing No. 11 of 2008 pertaining to the offences under Sections 302/201 IPC. The said Km. Akanksha Singh also filed a writ petition bearing No. 64399 of 2011 in this Court stating grievance against rejection of her candidature and selection of the present petitioner. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 14.11.2011 with reference to the process as provided under Clause 12 and 15 of the brochure relating to the selection in question whereby, the grievance and complaint could have been made for consideration under a redressal system provided by the respondent - IOC.

(3.) The said complainant, thereafter, made a representation stating the abovementioned facts about involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case. The petitioner, who was also afforded an opportunity of hearing, inter alia, contended that he was not involved in any criminal case pertaining to moral turpitude and/ or economic offence; and that in Case No. 11 of 2008, he had already been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011.