RAMADHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders dated 25.5.2011 and 5.9.2011, by which he has been dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal has been confirmed by the appellate authority, has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed in terms of an advertisement after following all procedures of law. After appointment, he had been discharging his duty. However, he had been served with a memorandum of charge alleging therein that at the time of submission of application form, he had suppressed one fact relating to his involvement in a criminal case in connection with Mohammad ganj P.S. Case No. 8/08 registered under Sections 216/216A/386 Penal Code and Sec. 17 of the C.L.A Act. He was directed to appear before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after scurrility of the application form of the petitioner, wherein the column pertaining to criminal antecedent had been marked as cross (x), meaning thereby, the petitioner was not involved in a criminal case, found the charge proved against the petitioner. In view thereof, by giving specific finding, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 25.5.2011. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the impugned order dated 25.5.2011, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2011. It has been submitted that although the petitioner had given a wrong declaration at the time of filling up the application form, but subsequently he had been acquitted in the said criminal case by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction by the judgment dated 14.6.2011, as such the ground taken by the authority concerned for dismissing the petitioner from service is not proper and that would lead to civil consequence. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644] and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 2903].

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner bring a candidate was supposed to come with clean hands by giving correct declarations. Admittedly, on the date of filling up the application form, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, but in the specific column meant for the same, the petitioner had not mentioned regarding his involvement in the said criminal case, as such he had tried to suppress the material fact. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 363].