BALDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Pump Operator, appointed in the services of the respondents has filed the Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, ventilating his grievance against the order dated 24.5.2000, by which his services were terminated on account of a report submitted by the police authorities after character verification of the petitioner. The Original Application was entertained, was pending before the Tribunal, when the Tribunal was closed, therefore, the Original Application has been transmitted to this Court and is registered as writ petition.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is that earlier a fair price shop was allotted to him. On account of rivalry between the petitioner and some other, who could not get the allotment of fair price shop, a false case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was got registered against the petitioner in Crime No.151/1976. A Challan was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, where a Criminal Case No.267/76 was registered against him. After the full dressed trial, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated 10.8.1977. The petitioner left the fair price shop and got an appointment as a daily wager employee in the Water Resources Department. The petitioner worked as a contingency employee thereafter for a long time and under the Scheme of the State Government, his claim was considered for regularisation and vide order dated 2.2.1999, the petitioner was regularised on the post of Pump Operator. The name of the petitioner was included in the said order. In terms of the order of appointment, the petitioner was required to furnish an attestation form for the purposes of police verification. The petitioner is semi-literate person, having little knowledge of English. The attestation form was in English, which according to information and the knowledge the petitioner has filled in. However, in Column-12 of the attestation form, the petitioner has not mentioned anything and has left it blank only because he was confused whether fact relating to his acquittal in the aforesaid case was required to be mentioned or not. On verification, the police authorities mentioned only this much that the petitioner was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. However, nothing was found whether the petitioner was having any other criminal record or not. Treating as if the petitioner has concealed these information in his attestation form, deliberately, without issuing any show cause notice, the order impugned was issued terminating the services of the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that the action on the part of respondents was per se illegal. The petitioner was not to be terminated in such a manner as there was no intention of petitioner to conceal the material information in his attestation form. Even such information if would have been given, it would not have constituted a cause for not granting appointment to the petitioner or ineligibility for appointment on the post, therefore, the termination of the petitioner on this count was bad in law.

(3.) Upon service of the notices of the petition, the respondents have filed their return. They have placed on record the attestation form, filled by the petitioner as Annx.R/1. It is contended by them that a specific warning was mentioned in the form itself that in case any material information is concealed and the said fact came to the notice of the authorities that will amount a serious misconduct for which the services of the employee concerned could be terminated. Thus, it is contended that the order was rightly issued terminating the services of the petitioner as it was found by the police authorities that material information with respect to the criminal prosecution of the petitioner was concealed by him. It is contended that on account of such a misconduct, the petitioner would not be entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.