HEMANTA KUMAR PANDA (DEAD) AND AFTER HIM SAMBHABI PANDA AND ORS. Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, KALAHANDI RANGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ application assails the majority view expressed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 890 of 1995 disposed of on 18.9.2000.

(2.) THE Petitioner initially entered into the defence service and joined in Army in the year 1974 and was discharged on retirement on 1.11.1990. The Collector, Nuapada undertook recruitment examination for filling up the vacancy in the rank of Junior Clerk in accordance with the provisions contained in O.M.S. Rules, 1985 and the Petitioner was one of the Applicants. The Petitioner was selected in the recruitment test and was appointed as Junior Clerk on 3.10.1994 and he joined in service. When he was continuing as such, by order dated 1.7.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason or without requiring the Petitioner to show cause in the matter of termination. Challenging the said order of termination, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Court is now called upon in this writ application to decide as to whether the majority view expressed by the Tribunal upholding the order of termination from service is justified or hot. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner had applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the Collectorate, Nuapada and had been selected for such appointment. He also joined in the post and continued for almost ten months. By order dated 1.7.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in the prescribed form against Clause -12 the Petitioner had given wrong information and, therefore, he was terminated from the service. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to a copy of this form annexed to the writ application as Annexure -5. Clause - 12 of the said form requires a candidate to disclose as to whether he has been convicted in a criminal case or not. In the event, the candidate is convicted in any criminal case, he is also required to disclose the nature of the case and the sentence imposed. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, undisputedly before submission of his application, he was involved in a criminal case and had been acquitted. At the time of submission of the application G.R. Case No. 69 of 1995 was pending against him, but the said G.R. Case had not been concluded. Basing on these admitted facts it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner having not been convicted in any case on the date of submission of the application, there was no requirement on the part of the Petitioner to disclose anything against Clause 12 of the application form.