LAXMI NARAYAN BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Graduate and holder of a certificate in Draughtsman Trade from Industrial Training Institute, Rewa, appeared in the examination for appointment on the post of Draughtsman and was declared to have qualified. Ex-consequence, he was appointed as an Assistant Draughtsman in the Department of Water Resources (formerly known as the 'irrigation Department') on 1-8-1980 as a daily wager. He continued as a Daily Wager till the first year of the last decade of the last millennium without any break in service. A certificate issued to that effect by the Executive Engineer has been brought on record as Annexure A-1.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, on the basis of various circularsthat came into force as policy decisions by the State Government, his case wasconsidered for the purpose of regularisation and eventually on 16th April, 1990vide Annexure A-2, his services stood regularised. It is asserted that throughout the service career, the petitioner had an unblemished record and enjoyedthe confidence of his authorities and his work was absolutely satisfactory. While he was having this benefit on 28-8-1992, his services were terminatedon the foundation that his services were no longer required by the Department. It is urged that no show-cause notice was issued and the impugned order oftermination came to be passed in flagrant violation of the principles of naturaljustice. It is also the case of the petitioner that when juniors were retained andthe petitioner was asked to leave, the basic principle of first come, last go wasnot kept in mind. It is averred that the authorities could not have taken suchan action as it violates the M. P. Civil Service (Temporary and Quasi Permanent)Rules. As pleaded, a representation was submitted to the authority but thesame was not paid heed to and sphinx like silence was maintained by theauthorities. With this assertion, prayer has been made for quashment of theorder of termination and for issue of a writ of mandamus for his reinstatement. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents, contending inter alia, that on the basis of circulars issued by the State Government from time to time, the Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for the purpose of the same, he was provided a form contained in Annexure R-1 to be filled in by him. In the column 12 (ka), the petitioner was required to give correct information regarding pendency of the criminal case or any criminal case lodged against him at any point of time. While filling up the said verification clause, the petitioner replied in the bald negative. On verification, it came to the knowledge of the authorities that the petitioner was involved in an offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 106 of 1977. As the petitioner had suppressed the said information, the authorities terminated his services on the basis of the condition precedent enshrined in the form, which lays a postulate that in the event of finding that an incorrect information had been provided by the incumbent, he would be visited with the order of termination. This was also reiterated in the letter of appointment.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate. Though Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner initially submitted with regard to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, eventually abandoned the same as he could realise the facts are tell tale and this Court can afford an opportunity of being heard and determine the matter. After abandoning the aforesaid submission, which was really feebly put, the learned Counsel propounded that the petitioner was under an erroneous impression and conceived a notion that as he was acquitted prior to his engagement as a daily wager on 18-5-1979, as per Annexure A-7, he could put forth the information in the negative. Developing the said submission, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that had the answer been in the positive, there would not have been any effect or impact as there could not have been any change in the scenario inasmuch as the acquittal in the criminal case had washed all the dirty linen against the petitioner and he could not have been punished for an act that had not been proved to be committed as the judgment on the criminal case clearly records. It is proponed by Mr. Dwivedi that the crime had been registered under Section 395/397, which may, on the first flush look loathsome, but on a proper scrutiny it is observable that the charge has to be on the path of declivity, for the inherent triviality of the allegations. Incrementing the said submission he has put forth that as an actual fact in an agitation by students, the petitioner was roped in alleging that all the accused had broken glass windows of a shop. The learned Counsel has demonstrated the said aspect from the judgment passed by the Criminal Court. It is urged by him that the ghost of the past should not haunt the torment the petitioner and follow like a shadow throughout life till the body pales into death.