VINOD KUMAR KHATIK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order (Annexure P-1) passed by Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and appeal and revision filed against were also dismissed by Collector, Hoshangabad by order (Annexure P-4) and by Commissioner, Hoshangabad, in Revision No. 8/nigrani/2001-2002 (Annexure P-6) on 6-6-2002.

(2.) THE allegation against the petitioner is that in column No. 12 of Form (Annexure R/4-1), he concealed the information that the criminal case was pending against him under Sections 324/34 and 294, IPC on the date when he was appointed as per order (Annexure R/4-3) 30th July, 1998. After submitting the Form (Annexure R/4-1) the authority enquired from the police and as per report (Annexure R/4-5) dated 1-2-99, Inspector General, Bhopal informed to the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya, Hoshangabad that a criminal case against petitioner under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324 and 506/34, IPC is registered at Police Station, Pipariya at Crime No. 375/96 and the petitioner is disqualified to be appointed on the post. On receiving the said information, order dated 23-2-99 (Annexure P-1) was issued and petitioner's services were terminated.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid information could not be given bona fidely. The petitioner was appointed initially vide order (Annexure R/4-2) on 14-11-1996. Thereafter he continued in the next session. On knowing it that the aforesaid information could not be filed by the petitioner, the petitioner himself brought into the notice of the authority that the aforesaid criminal case was pending against him which was decided on 5-1-1999 and the petitioner has been acquitted. This information was submitted by the petitioner by Annexure P-2 on 18-14999 to the Block Education Officer, Pipariya, but in spite of this without considering the fact of acquittal, the authority terminated the services of the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 on 23-2-1999. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor his application (Annexure P-2) was considered by the authorities.