PRAFUL KASEKAR Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Junior Executive (ATC) vide Annexure P-1, dated 12-3-2007/12-2-2007. Thereafter, the petitioner gave his joining and was undergoing the requisite training organized by the respondents. Later on 6-9-2007 a notice to terminate the services of the petitioner was served on him by the respondents on the ground that he had supplied incorrect information and suppressed this fact that he was arrested in a criminal case on 17-8-2005. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order (Annexure P-4), dated 6-9-2007.

(3.) BY inviting my attention to the attestation form (Annexure P-2) and particular Clause 13 (f) and (g) it has been contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that specifically petitioner submitted that a criminal case is pending against him and he also mentioned its case number. The contention of learned counsel is that a case under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC is pending against petitioner as the motor vehicle accident took place by him while he was driving a motorcycle. The contention of learned Counsel is that had there been any intention of the petitioner to conceal the reality of his arrest he would not have mentioned that a case under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC is pending against him. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner was under impression that the term 'arrest' in attestation form (Annexure P-2) would mean to handcuff and putting in the lock-up, and, therefore, in the requisite Column No. 13 (1) (a)of attestation form (Annexure P-2) he has stated that he was never arrested. Thus, according to the learned Counsel since the act of petitioner is bona fide, therefore, the action of respondents terminating his services on this ground that he supplied incorrect information cannot be sustained and is arbitrary. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222.