CW 3041/96 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3041/1996 Gyarsilal Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajiv Bandhu, for petitioner Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel, for respondents-State Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.30/01/90 (Ann.1) whereby services of petitioner were terminated on the premises that criminal cases were registered against him and challan was filed before competent court of jurisdiction. Petitioner was appointed as Ward Boy (Class IV) vide order dt.19/10/89 for a period of six months on the recommendations of selection committee dt.17/10/89. But since he was facing criminal trial for offences U/Ss 307, IPC in FIR-90/88 and U/Ss 147, 148, 149, 325, 323, 341, IPC, in FIR-213/88, and working on temporary basis, his service were terminated on the basis of police verification report vide order dt.30/01/90 (Ann.2), which he did not challenge while facing trial in two criminal cases. However, competent court of jurisdiction while giving benefit of doubt acquitted him of offences vide judgments CW 3041/96 //2// respectively dt.04/03/91 (Ann.6-in FIR-90/88) and dt.18/10/95 (Ann.7-in FIR 213/88). Petitioner earlier made representation before the reconciliation officer against termination of his services and after failure report, appropriate Government vide order dt. 19/12/1992 (Ann.5) in exercise of power U/S 12 (5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not consider it proper to make a reference while observing that since petitioner had worked only for three months & four days, he is not entitled for seeking relief under ID Act. After acquittal in criminal cases by competent court of jurisdiction, petitioner submitted representations (Ann.8 to 10), which since were not considered by respondents, approached by way of this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that there was no concealment on the part of petitioner and merely because of criminal cases being registered against him, that itself, will not deprive from his right conferred on being appointed in the cadre of Class IV and even while passing the order of termination, opportunity of hearing was not afforded, which was in violation of principles of natural justice. CW 3041/96 //3// Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that after his services were terminated on account of criminal cases being registered against him, petitioner submitted a letter in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Kota on 08/02/90, specifically stating therein that no criminal case is ever registered against him and it appears to be registered against some other named as Gyarsilal and not the present petitioner and he requested for re-verification in this regard; and on re-verification, report was sent to the CMHO, Kota pointing out that cases have been registered against present petitioner and not some other named as Gyarsilal as is evident from letter dt. 12/06/90 (Ann.R.3). Having considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record, this Court finds that services of petitioner were terminated way back in January, 1990 due to criminal cases being registered, while instant petition was filed after almost six years and this inordinate delay has remained unexplained on the part of petitioner except that since he was facing trial in criminal cases and after CW 3041/96 //4// acquittal recorded by competent court of jurisdiction, he has filed instant petition, which in no manner can be considered to be a reasonable explanation. That apart, his service was terminated because of criminal cases being registered, he made representation clarifying & specifically pointing out that no criminal case has ever been registered against him and it was not the petitioner but some other Gyarsilal, facing criminal trial. This fact on re-verification by respondents was found to be incorrect as is evident from letter dt. 12/06/90 (Ann.R.3) by which it clearly depicts that on verification, it is petitioner who was facing criminal trial at the relevant time and this fact is further fortified from judgments (Ann.R.6 & 7) placed by him on record by which he was acquitted of offences charged by giving benefit of doubt. But ultimate fact remains that at the time of appointment, he has tried to mislead & misrepresent the authority by concealing material facts about criminal cases being registered, which was found to be incorrect on re-verification as is evident from report (Ann.R.3). Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, may be upon recommendations CW 3041/96 //5// of selection committee in the cadre of Class IV, but he has tried to mislead the authority by filing representation about disclosure of material fact of criminal case having never been registered against him but against some other Gyarsilal. Respondents took note of such conduct of petitioner while passing order of termination impugned; and due to such mis- representation on his part, and apart from the delay caused in filing instant petition, this Court does not find justification to exercise equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/ 3041CW96Aug13.doc