SHIV PRASAD MEENA Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition is directed against order of the ld. Central Administrative Tribunal dated 01.09.2011 declining to interfere in the order dated 16.09.2009 whereby the petitioner's appointment/selection was cancelled for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) on the pretext that he suppressed material information while the application form was filled, at the stage of participating in the selection process for JTO Examination, 2007. The salient facts which are relevant for appreciation of the present controversy are that the respondents issued an advertisement for selection to the post of JTO by open Competitive Examination, 2007. The examination was conducted on 15.06.2008 in which the petitioner was declared successful on the basis of merit and it was subject to provisionally fulfillment of eligibility conditions. At that stage, the petitioner was required to submit necessary information in the attestation form and in Clause (13) thereof, the petitioner was required to disclose information regarding pendency of criminal cases/trial, if any initiated against him. The information which was desired to be disclosed by the petitioner/applicant in Clause (13) of the attestation form (Ann. 2), he indicated both the cases which were registered against him. In Criminal Case No. 454/2002 he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 04.01.2003 and another Criminal Case No. 113/2004 (328/2005) registered against the petitioner for offence u/Ss. 452/34 & 323, IPC and after the charge-sheet was filed, parties arrived at a compromise as regards charge u/S. 323, IPC and as regards charge u/S. 452/34, IPC, this being non-compoundable offence, as usual, the petitioner accepted his guilt and after recording of guilt for offence u/S. 452/34, IPC, he was granted benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but since there was no sentence which was to undergo and the petitioner being unaware of niceties & terminology as to what will be the effect of distinction between 'acquittal' or 'benefit of probation' in the attestation form Clause (13), he mentioned that he was acquitted of the charges by judgment dated 01.10.2005. Obviously, when the case was sent for police verification, the District Magistrate, Kota sent his report dated 13.07.2009 that in Criminal Case No. 328/2005 charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner u/Ss. 452 & 323, IPC but after being convicted u/S. 452/34, IPC, he was granted benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the Court bound down him to pay Rs. 2,000/- and ordered him to that during the period of two years, the petitioner shall not indulge in any crime and shall maintain peace and treating it to be an act of concealment, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 15.04.2009 and with the follow-up action, he was declared disqualified and selection was cancelled vide order dated 16.09.2009 and further letter was issued to him dated 30.10.2009 directing him to deposit the bond amount, training expenses and stipend paid during the training and other expenses.

(2.) This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before the ld. Tribunal and the ld. Tribunal considered the fact which was indicated in Clause 13(ii) of the attestation form where the petitioner indicated that he faced trial but was finally acquitted, however, the fact is that he was granted benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Act with furnishing of bond of Rs. 2,000/- for maintaining peace for next two years. It was considered to be a suppression of facts on part of the petitioner, which he was supposed to indicate/disclose in Clause (13) of the attestation form and in furtherance thereof the respondents cancelled his selection and that was upheld by the ld. Tribunal under order impugned dated 01.09.2011.

(3.) The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner voluntarily disclosed the criminal trials which he faced with specific terms available at his command in Clause (13) of the attestation form and he could not realize the legal implications of conviction/sentence and granted benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Act, and the distinction between 'acquittal' or 'probation' and such legal implications could not be known by him and he has no intention to suppress any material facts from the authorities regarding criminal trials which he faced and whatever information he gathered from the judgment, he voluntarily disclosed in Clause (13) of the attestation form and under these facts & circumstances, this could not be considered to be an Act of concealment on the part of petitioner and the premise on which the respondents have taken decision for cancellation of his selection further upheld by the ld. Tribunal, is not in conformity with the mandate of law and that requires interference by this court.