DHANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order Annexure-A-6 dated 1.10.1992 by which it has been directed that services of the petitioner shall come to an end after one month w.e.f. 1.10.1992. In brief, the case of petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of peon vide order Annexure-A-1 dated 12.2.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 725-900/-. During the course of employment when he sought for regularisation, he was directed to submit the character verification certificate. Petitioner submitted the said certificate which is filed as Anhexure-A-5. In Column No. 12 of the said certificate he stated that he did not write anything in Column No. 12 (a) which pertains to whether he was arrested, prosecuted, kept under the detention, etc. In Column No. 12 (b) which pertains to pendency of any case in any Court of law, University or any other educational authority, Institutions at the time of filling up attestation form. In this column the petitioner write "Nahin", meaning thereby "No". Again in Column No. 12 (c) which pertains to arrest, detention, fine, conviction, sentence, etc., the petitioner again wrote "Nahin", that means "No". Indeed during his service tenure the petitioner was facing a trial under section 25 of the Arms Act, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide AnnexUre-A-3 which is judgment dated 13.7.1991 the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court. Learned counsel further invited my attention to Annexure-7 (c), which is confidential letter dated 27.8.1992 written for and on behalf of D.I.G. to Chief Enginer, Indira Sagar Pariyojna, Khandwa informing him that the petitioner is held to be not entitled to be retained in service by the department on the ground of concealment of fact of pendency of criminal case. In the said letter it was advised that since petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court, therefore, even if this fact has been concealed, it would not be having any effect on merit. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that vide order Annexure-A-4 dated 21.8.1991 as after acquittal of the petitioner the suspension order was withdrawn and he was taken back in service, therefore, the action of respondents passing the impugned order thereafter terminating the services of the petitioner is arbitrary in nature. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janki Grah Nirman Cooperative Housing Society v. Collector, Jabalpur 1987 JLJ 638 = 1987 MPLJ 456.

(2.) ON the other hand, Shri Tiwa'ri, learned Dy. Government Advocate has submitted that petitioner deliberately gave wrong particulars in his character verification certificate that he has not been arrested nor any criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, in view of decision of the apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav 2003 (1) JLJ 403 = (2003) 3 SCC 437 he is not entitled to be reinstated. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view chat this petition deserves to be dismissed. No doubt, it is true that petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 13.7.1991 (Annex. A-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harsood. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act, but the acquittal was not honourable and he was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt to him. Merely because the order of suspension was withdrawn after his acquittal would not mean that respondents cannot take any action to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of furnishing wrong information in the character verification certificate in Column No. 12. I am not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that in Annexure-A-7 (c) there is recommendation of Dy. S.P. that on account of acquittal of the petitioner there is no question of concealment of any fact. This document is only a correspondence between Dy. S.P. and the Chief Engineer. No right is conferred by this correspondence to the petitioner. Moreover on going through Annexure-A-7 (c) it is gathered that this letter was not written by the DIG but for him somebody else has signed. Since on the basis of some correspondence between the two officers no right is conferred to the petitioner, the view of this Court is that this annexure would not help the petitioner.

(3.) IF the ratio decidendi of the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) is tested on the anvil of present factual scenario, it would clear as like a noon day that the decision of Ram Ratan Yadav is squarely applicable in the present case as petitioner has supplied wrong information in the character verification form. The,Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Janki Grab. Nirman Cooperative Housing Society (Supra) is tangentially off the point. The point in hand was not the point in the said case and the point in dispute in that case was altogether different. Thus, the view of this Court is that the decision of Janki Grah Nirman Cooperative Housing Society (supra) is not applicable in the present case. Judging from all angles, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of respondents in issuing order Annexure-A-6 dated 1.10.92 directing that the services of the petitioner shall come to an end after one month w.e.f. 1.10.1992. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.