DIBYA SHANKAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.414 of 2005 dismissing the said O.A. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for the Post of Sub -Inspector of Police. He was not sent for training because of the reason that on police verification some criminal cases were found to have been filed against him in which he was tried and remained in jail for a long time. Further the petitioner had not disclosed in the verification roll that any criminal case was pending against him on the date of filling up of the form. A perusal of the copy of the verification Roll produced by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate before us shows that in Col. 7 thereof the following was mentioned, against which the petitioner had mentioned "No". It reads as follows :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact due to inadvertence the petitioner did not inform about the pendency of criminal cases and also he remained in jail for a long time. He has placed reliance on the case law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Dhaval Singh, reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2326 in which the Honble Apex Court observed that the respondent in that case while submitting his application Form inadvertently did not mention about the pendency of the criminal cases, but later on he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police that at the time of submission of application form he had not mentioned about pendency of the criminal case in the appropriate column which was done due to lack of knowledge for which he may be excused and that application may be treated as information from his side. Later on he was acquitted in the said criminal case. But, in the meantime his candidature was cancelled. In that case the apex Court has held that as the respondent had conveyed that inadvertently he has committed the mistake in not giving information on the relevant column before cancellation of his candidature, the Tribunal rightly set aside the cancellation order. The order of the Tribunal was upheld by the apex Court. There is material difference in this case. In the instant case, we have noticed that as many as two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner at the time he filled up the application form. We have noticed that three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner at different times right from 1995 till 2002. First, G.R. Case No.236/95 had given rise to S.T. Case No.37/34 of 1996 in which the petitioner was initially charged under Section 364/34 IPC and later on the charge was converted to Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC. However, he was acquitted in that case vide judgment and order dated 21.8.1997. The second case was registered as G.R. Case No.351/2002 in which the petitioner was charged under Sections 147/146/341/323/427/576/149 IPC but he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2004. In the third case, namely, I.C.C. Case No.24/2002 which was converted to G.R. Case No.514 of 2002, the petitioner was charged under Sections 447/379/34 IPC, but he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2005.

(3.) THE above application has been sent for the first time and no application before that was ever sent, which shows that while informing acquittal regarding one case, the Dy. D.G. and concerned authority were not informed about the other criminal cases instituted or pending against the petitioner, and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner had not informed the concerned authority about the institution or pendency of the criminal case inadvertently. While sending information of acquittal of one case he could have sent the information of institution or pendency of other cases, but this has not been done. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not deliberately concealed the material facts. Therefore, no case for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal is made out. The writ petition is without any merit and is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Petition dismissed.