HARISH KUMAR ROLANIA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by challenging order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') whereby OA No. 52-JK of 2009 has been dismissed. THE petitioner has challenged order dated 16.10.2008 terminating his services on account of concealment and suppression of information while submitting his application form. In Column 'B'(I), he has given the following information: (B) Have you ever been prosecuted- No (I) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form No. It has come on record that after his selection, his antecedents were verified and a report was submitted by the District Magistrate, Jaipur about his character and antecedents which revealed that a criminal case No. 574 of 2006 had been registered under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 34 IPC. In the aforesaid case charge sheet No. 397 of 2006 was filed against the petitioner in the Court of C.J.M. Shahpura and the petitioner was acquitted. It is well settled that if challan has been presented then the criminal prosecution is deemed to have commenced. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that in another case of Arvind Kumar v. Kendriya Vidyala Sanghathan and another, this Court has reversed the judgement of the Tribunal rendered in OA No. 653/ HP of 2008 decided on 27.8.2009 on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal itself. However, we are not impressed with the argument because in that case, an employee was facing a complaint referred by the Police to the Gram Panchayat. On the first date of hearing the complainant did not turn up and the complaint was dismissed. There was no prosecution launched against the employee. The report of the District Magistrate was found to be erroneous. In the present case, however, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted and it was after prosecution that he entered into some compromise which resulted in his acquittal. The principles laid down in K.V.Jankiraman's case (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case whereas those principles were not applicable in Arvind Kumar's case (supra).