A'Ff^. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSG&RH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Si No. 20SO of 2007 ,-&^/ Petitioner Respondents Kalicharan Suiyawansfai Versus State of Chhattisgarh &-. ofhers .^ Post for order on 3-7JvSy, 2007 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge -<' HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No. 2050 of 2007 Petitk>ner Kalicharan SuryawansN, S/o Makhanlal Suryawanshi, Aged about 43 years, R/o Birkona, Tahsil & Disfrict- Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1) StaSe of ChhatBsgarh - Through fce Secretary, Water Resources Oeparhnent, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Depsrtment, Hasdeo Kachhar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3) The Exscutive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kharang, Bitaspur, (C.G.) 4) Inspector Genera! (Confidential) Raipur (C.G.) WWT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Sstish K. Agnihotri, J Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for ihe pet'rtioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 2.1 day of July, 2007) The followlng order of the Court is passed by Satish K. AgnBiotri, J. 1. By thts pefitton ffled under Arttete 226 of flie Constilution of India, the petitioner chaltenges the tegaiity anc! validlty of 8ie order dated 15.1.2007 (Annsxure P/5), passed by e Chief Engjnesr, W^sr Resourees Department, Hssdeo Kachhar, Bitespur (Respondent No.2), wherebythe petffionerwas removed from services. 2. The petitioner was appointed as daily wages Labour in Irrigation Department, Kharang Sub Dwision, Bilaspur. Vide order dated 22.5.2004 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No. 1@I.D.AJK-111-/ (Ref.), on an applteation fleld by Uie Divfeiona! Daily Workcharged Labour Unfon, tte Lsbour Court directed regularizaSon of the 2 ^ -^ services of the petffioner along with o ers, after sfx. monttis of e date ofthejrjoining, wtth consequentia! wages and benefits. 3. Pursuant to the said order datsd 22.5.2(X)4, passed by the Labour Court, ttie respondent No.2 by order dated 3.9.2005 (Annexure P/2) regutarized She serwces offt®peGUoner as unskilted Labour on the pay scale of Rs. 25K) - 32(X3. On regutarizatton the petittoner was required to fill up attestation form (Annexure P/4). In coloumn No.12 offte attestation form foHowing informafen wss requlred to be fiited up S>y the petitioner, whteh reads as undsr- (12) Tff/ 'm 3im Tpsft Pi-(i(td|>i fSSSf ^ ?, <Pff 3!m T'? •P'ft arf^iFT "irapn t?w t. qw 3IW wft Pres fNr ^ w aro^ pfcwr ftprr ^mT t amr ^R ^ifrff fSRm ITO ?, ;TOT am f^ift 3WW ^) f^jf ^<Ki!i?i->l SRF (Mt 35'rt ^ f, 'R aiw^ ^frS •'ft ete ^frin sifraW gro ^w^ •H'TfiRit) ^wai'r * ftBt ul?^ -ff^ TWtt 4 ^rfN^RT ^A ^ •rf^T f^n Ttpn $, ^•TH'fe Rf'1 WT? d<"<t<« 'TOT t ?iT WI 3iTO}?F fit^ft •^ TT^ten 4 ^s^ ^ gfya Rfsn ^mi $-Pi'»<?iRid f^n ^pir t i ^/ <TO ^H 3)^yt!!»M Wt i^t •'R^ WPI f^ft ^ft TtRR "!il'»t]ci'il R^ilRyid^i W fifrift ^ ^gff6ra? yiSl*i'< WKT? 4 atrq-ri? fivs ^ wrai c'ffcr t, ?iR (%) awm p3) 4 ^ ^ !R-# >fr i?wr 4 WF^ ^wR ^f 4 5t ^fr 3(W^ ?-ff ai-jy1))"!-! ^srf ^r ii^r wro ~v5^ if ft% firN 'igqPr ^ s w-ff <'.u^!-i)?,iii snf^- <fr ^ N^ S^P Tp^ TiTfeq o?lT ^ff ^rf ^t tR^ WPI ^stfm ftyn) Ro ^rfan? wfiiii'i"! •3ilSt ^ WIS? ufr WTBT elft<T ^T s3'H(W ^ti^W 4ddM! Tf^!\ 4. Th® petitioner recewed the removal order dated 15.1.2007 (^inexure P15) stating theran that ttie peSSoner was not found suitabte on tti®baste of ttie enquiry report to continue In sen/ice. 5. Being aggrieved. 8ie peCtioner filed thte petffion seeldng a v/ris/direction to quash fte impugned order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P15) and to grant consequential benefiis. 3 6. The petiUoner in ttiis petiBon has questioned the legality and wilidity of ttie order dated 15.1.2007 on the ground Uiat e aiteged crime, registered against one Kalicharan in the year 1998, was not in respect of the petitioner but in respect of another Kalfcharan. The petittoner Rirtheraverred that the petitioner never ever faced any frial nor was arrested or sent to jail. Some other person by same name Kaficharan S/o MaRhan La! was atso resident of ttie same village against whom a criminal case was registered in the year 1999. The service of Uie petffoner has been tenninated writhout h<rfding proper enquiry. 7. Shri P. R. Patankar, teamed counset appearing for ttie petftioner submits that (he peBfioner was never srrested in hls lifs time and no cas®wss regfstered against him and he has never faced any trial. Therefore, the termmation of the petiSoner from serace on th® ground that the petitioner has not submitted correct details <rf his arrest or criminal case registered s^ainst him in column No. 12 of the attestation form te not correct and based on no materials. 8. The respondents in their return submitted ftattwo cases bearing Case No. 10/99 under the provisjons of SecSon 107,116 (3) of the indian Penal Code and Crime No. 571/74 under the provisions of Section 147, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code vrere registered against the petittonsr and he was acquitted from the crimmal case but the informstion with regard to the regisfration of case, triat and acquittal were not submiSted in the attestation form. Thus, e petitioner has concealed the relevant facts. The petftioner was liabte te be removed from service on account of conc^lment of the relevant facts ss required in the attestation form. 9. The respondents have categoricatly stated in para 11 of the retum that a crime registered in 8is year 1999 was against ottter •^ Kaficharan, not Sie petitioner but the crime registered in the year 1974 was againstthe peSttoner. The mistake occurred on account of the fact ttiat Uie fattiers' names of both Kalfoharan were one and ttie same. On query from teamed counse) for the respondents, ft was pointed out ftat the pstitioner was about 9-10 years otel in ttie year 1974, vrtien ttie case was registsred against him. 10.The petitioner in his rejoindsr has cteariy stated that e peffioner being a minor at ftat point of Sme O" Sh®year 1974) vres not arrested and he had not facscf any tria!. The respondents could not produce any document in sunsort of their cas®ftaS a criminal cas® was regjstersd in e year 1974 and the petitioner wss arrested. 11.Leamed counsel appearing for the respondente, per contra, would submit thst It is true that fte poiice is not in possession of any of fte documente with regard to ftie registration of the case in the year 1974 and the petitioner was aclmittedly sbout 9-10 years o!d at tftat point of time. Hovrever, on enquiry it was fond thst a case was registerec! against the petitionsr. The petitioner ought to havs given detaite of tti®case ev^n if it was of the year 1974, even if, the petitioner was minor at that point oftime. Faiiure to submft deteils by ttie rsspondente, in case of removat of e psfifioner from ttie service, on e ground that the petitioner has conceated the retevant facts, woutd prej'udice the case oftte pefiSioner. 12-t have heard tearned counss! appearing forthe parties, perused tte pfeadings and documents appendeci thsreto. !S te evident that tte stefement of the respondents that a crimina! case was registerec! in the year 1974 against ths petitionsr is not supported by any documents. On speciflc query, the respondents appearing tt^rough counset dsnied the availabiiity of any records. Even if it is taken to be frue, fte pefftioner was acimiftedfy, 9-10 years old at that point -^ <;" <£- of time. He was a minor, he did not know th®pendency of the criminal case as he was never arrestsd and he never facsd a fria! being minor and uttimately it resulted into &ie dischsrge from fte case. The attestation/v&'ification form was filled up on 28.3.20< , after 32 yeare. Thus it cannot be held ftat a criminal case v/as psnding against the petitioner. 13.It i's a trite !aw that the object of requmng information in various columns of fte attestation foim by She candidate is to ascertain and vsriSy the character and antecedente to judge his suitability to continue in ssrvfee ( See Conimfssioner of Police, Delhi and anottier vs. Eihaval Singh , Kendriya Wdyalaya Sangathan and ottiers vs. Ram Ratan Yadav^and Secy., Dept of Home Secy., A.P. and ofhers vs. B. Chinnam Naidu3) 14.Apply(ng wef! seffied priRciptes of iaw to fte facts of tte present case, it cannot be heM that the petffionsr was not suitable to woric as unskiBed Lsbour in service as he has conceated fte material information or submitted false information. Even if the contenSon of the respondents vnth regard to ttie regisfration of the case in th® year 1974 is accepted, it wiuld not materially affect the suteib'riity of the pettioner to fte job as the petftioner was minor at that point of time. The petitioner was not arrested and h®has never faced any Wal, therefore, it could reasonabiy bs eiqsected ftat the petiGoner did not have any jnformation afSer a period of 32 years and Ihat dk! not attach much importance to th®said fact after a period of 32 years when he filted up ths sttsstalaon and verification form before joining the senrice of unskiKed Labour on regular basis. 15.Sn view of the foregoing it can not be held that ttre petitioner is not suitabte to enter into or continue in servic®as unskilled Labour. 6 16.For the reasons stated herein above, fte impugned order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P/5) is qusshed and the respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to reinstate the petittoner in service forttiwith. !n the facts and drcumstances ofthe case, ttiere shal! bs no order as to coste. -~^' Sd/- Satish K. Judge (1%9)1SCC246' 2003) 3 SCC 437' (200552SCC7468 Thakur