IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15607 of 2007 ==================================================== ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI BARISTER RAO, RESIDENT OF BELBAG COLONY, BETTIAH, POLICE STATION- BETTIAH, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH, CHERK, CIVIL COURT WEST CHAMPARNA AT BETTIAH :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 3. THE CIVIL COURT, BETTIAH THROUGH JUDGE IN-CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION). 4. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 5. THE JUDGE-IN-CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BITTIAH :---RESPONDENTS. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: MR. RAJENDRA PD. SINGH, SENIOR ADVOCATE. MR. NAVJOT YESHU, ADVOCATE. For the Respondent No. 2 to 5 : MR. ABHINAY RAJ, ADVOCATE. ==================================================== 07. 15.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2-5; also perused the affidavit affirmed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3-5. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as clerk in the Civil Court, Bettiah. He has filed this writ petition challenging Order No. 48/2007 bearing Memo No. 1306- 8 dated 18.8.2007, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been discharged from service with immediate effect as in a departmental proceeding initiated against him he is found to have furnished incorrect information about his antecedent at the time of submitting joining on 29.08.2006 pursuant to appointment letter dated 2 28.8.2006. In this connection petitioner was placed under suspension under Order No. 41/2007 bearing Memo No. 993-95 dated 11.7.2007, Annexure-9, in contemplation of initiation of the departmental proceeding against him. Memo of Article of Charge was served on the petitioner under General Order No. 91/2007 bearing Memo No. 990-92 dated 11.07.2007, Annexure-10. Perusal of the Article of Charge indicate that petitioner joined the post of clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- pursuant to appointment letter dated 28.8.2006, Annexure-6 on 29.8.2006 and at the time of joining he filed affidavit stating therein that no criminal or civil proceeding was pending against him. Later it transpired that petitioner was accused in Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129/2001 for the offences under Sections 147,148,149, 323, 324, 436, 452, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (X) S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which remained pending against the petitioner on the date of his joining also but information about the implication of the petitioner in the said case was not disclosed in the affidavit which was filed by the petitioner on 29.08.2006. Having received the charge-sheet petitioner submitted his written defence dated 31.07.2007, Annexure-11 before the Enquiry Officer in paragraph-3, whereof petitioner admitted the fact that the case remained under investigation when he had submitted his joining but he was released on bail by the C.J.M., 3 Bettiah under order dated 26.10.2002. After release of the petitioner on bail the Investigating Officer and other superior police officers assured the petitioner in view of his false implication in the case that he shall not be sent up for trial. In the light of the assurance of the superior police officer petitioner did not furnish information about his false implication in Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129 of 2001 in the affidavit which he furnished on 29.8.2006 at the time of his joining the post of clerk pursuant to appointment letter dated 28.8.2006. Counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 196 (Supreme Court) submitted that incorrect information furnished by the petitioner was on account of fear as petitioner apprehended that if he gave information about his false implication in the pending Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129 of 2001 in the affidavit he may not be allowed to join the post. In this connection, learned counsel further pointed out that from the First Information Report of the said case as also the report of the Inspector of Police, C.I.D. ST/SC Cell, Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar dated 02.07.2002, submitted to the Superintendent of Police, S.C./S.T. and Minority Cell, C.I.D., Bihar, Patna contained in Annexure-17 it will appear that the implication of the petitioner in Bettiah 4 Town P.S.Case No. 129/2001 dated 08.05.2001 is doubtful as the very genesis of the case was on account of forcible occupation of the land of the Bettiah Raj by the residents of Ambedkar Colony who were dispossessed from the lands of the Bettiah Raj at the instance of the District Administration. In the background of the fact that the concerned land dispute is between the residents of the Ambedkar Colony who forcibly occupied the lands of the Bettiah Raj and the possession of the Bettiah Raj was restored by the Administration itself, whereafter prosecution party of the said case falsely implicated the petitioner and others, this Court should take a lenient view of the matter and set aside the order discharging the petitioner from service as he has been selected to serve as clerk in the Bettiah Civil Court pursuant to a written examination and interview. 3. Counsel for the High Court has opposed the prayer. He states that question whether petitioner has been falsely implicated in land dispute relating to Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129 of 2001 dated 08.05.2001 is not relevant for adjudication of the present writ case as the impugned discharge order does not proceed on the basis that he is accused in the said case, rather the impugned discharge order proceeds on the basis that petitioner while submitting his joining on 29.08.2006 submitted false information that he is not 5 accused in any criminal case that too on affidavit. The action is being taken against the petitioner for suppressing the information about his implication in the criminal case. Had he given information about his implication in the said case in the affidavit and thereafter if he would not have been granted permission to join the post of clerk pursuant to the appointment letter in such situation this Court may have given directions for accepting his joining subject to the result of the said case. Petitioner having suppressed the information, this Court is not to take lenient view in the matter as such lenient view by this Court may encourage others to submit false or incorrect information at the time of submitting their joining. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having found the fact that petitioner suppressed information about his implication in Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129/2001 which is also admitted by him in written defence dated 31.07.2007, Annexure-11, I have no option but to maintain the dismissal order passed against him and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Before parting with this order this Court will take notice of the allegations set out in the First Information Report of Bettiah Town P.S.Case No. 129 of 2001 as also the findings of the C.I.D. Inspector dated 02.07.2002, Annexure-17 and reading the two together there is no difficulty in coming to this conclusion that a 6 land dispute for taking possession of the land of Bettiah Raj was raised by the residents of the Ambedkar Colony by putting up their thatched hut(s) over the lands of the Bettiah Raj which was creating problem to the other residents of the area including the District Administration. The District Administration stepped in and took steps for removal of the forcible possession of the lands of the Bettiah Raj by the residents of the Ambedkar Colony. In this background if petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case he shall request the District Judge to recall the impugned discharge order on the ground that he has been granted acquittal in the said case. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)