IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 925 of 2004 Between: J.Ramkoti, S/o.Muthaiah R/o.Karakavagu Paloncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APGENCO rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager (Adm) APGENCO, Vidyut soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, O&M, KTPS, APGENCO, Paloncha Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings vide Memo No.CE/O&M/KTPS/ADC/C5/D.No.1141/2002, dated 6-6-2002 on the file of the 3rd respondent wherein the service of the petitioner was trminated as confirmed in the appeal by the 1st respondent vide Memo No.GM(A)/DS(E)/AS(DC)/227/D2/1999, dated 23.8.2002 and quash the same is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the service regulations and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service with all attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.925 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, a Mazdoor in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO), challenges the proceedings in Memo No.CE/O&M/KTPS/ADC/C5/ D.No.1141/2002 dated 06.06.2002 passed by the Chief Engineer, O&M, KTPS, Paloncha, terminating his services and the appellate proceedings of the Chairman and Managing Director of the APGENCO in Memo No.GM(A)/DS(E)/AS(DC)/227/D2/1999 dated 23.08.2002 confirming the said termination. He seeks a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits. The petitioner claims to have worked as a Contract Labourer from 1987 to 1998 in Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as ‘KTPS’). He was absorbed as a regular Mazdoor in the services of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board under the memo dated 17.03.1998. Such absorption was effected under B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997, B.P.Ms.No.260 dated 19.12.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997. As per Clause 4(xi) of B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997, such absorption was subject to verification of antecedents. The same was also informed to the appointees, including the petitioner through the appointment order. While so, the petitioner was issued the show cause notice dated 22.10.1999 stating that the verification of his antecedents had revealed that he was convicted in Crime No.251 of 1991 under Section 325 of the IPC, which fact had been suppressed by him while filling the attestation forms at the time of his absorption in service. The petitioner was accordingly called upon to explain as to why he should not be terminated from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 22.01.2002 stating that the incident resulting in his conviction in Crime No.251 of 1991 had occurred before his employment and was in no way connected with his employment activities. He sought to explain the incident and stated that a Revision had also been preferred against the said conviction before the High Court. The Chief Engineer, O&M, KTPS, APGENCO, Paloncha, being of the opinion that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case, terminated him from service under the proceedings dated 06.06.2002. In Appeal, the Chairman and Managing Director, APGENCO, confirmed the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner had suppressed his involvement in the criminal case and accordingly confirmed his termination from service under the proceedings dated 23.08.2002. Assailing the aforestated two proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the APGENCO in terminating the services of his client was in violation of the procedure prescribed in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for brevity, ‘the Regulations’) adopted by the APGENCO and was therefore liable to be set aside. The learned counsel pointed out that the APGENCO had resorted to the procedure of issuing a show cause notice, calling for an explanation and thereafter terminating the services of his client without holding a departmental enquiry. He submitted that removal from service was a major penalty under Regulation 5(vii) and therefore the APGENCO ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Regulation 10(2)(a) which states that where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in Regulation 5 amongst others, the authority competent to impose such penalty shall appoint an Enquiry Officer or shall itself hold an enquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the failure on the part of the APGENCO in following the procedure, rendered the disciplinary action taken against his client legally unsustainable and prayed for a direction to the APGENCO to reinstate him in service. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the APGENCO that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the factum of his conviction in a criminal case. It is stated that the petitioner filled an attestation form at the time of his absorption into service as a Mazdoor and that he was required to divulge the details of any conviction in a criminal case by any court of law, under item 12 of the said form. The petitioner however marked ‘NO’ specifically as against this item and also against the item requiring him to furnish the details of such conviction. The learned counsel for the APGENCO also pointed out that the attestation form itself put the petitioner on notice that if he furnished any false information or suppressed any factual information in the attestation form, his services would be liable for termination on that ground. The learned counsel therefore submitted that in the light of the fraud committed by the petitioner in willfully suppressing his conviction in a criminal case reflecting on his antecedents, the procedure followed by the APGENCO, in calling upon him to submit his explanation and thereafter terminating him from service after considering the same, was lawfully valid. The learned counsel submitted that Regulation 10 would have no role to play in the facts of the present case and therefore it was not necessary for the APGENCO to hold an enquiry in the matter. It is relevant to note that the penalties to be imposed for good and sufficient reasons under Regulation 5 of the Regulations are linked to the misconducts specified in Regulation 6 of the Regulations. Regulation 6 speaks of acts and omissions which would be treated as misconduct. For the purposes of this case, Regulation 6 (xxx) is the only relevant provision. Regulation 6 (xxx) reads as hereunder: “Giving false information regarding name, father’s name, qualification, age, or previous service or any other information connected with employment, at the time of employment or any other time during service” The above provision makes it clear that only false information with regard to the aspects mentioned in the clause would be treated as misconduct under Regulation 6 which would bring into operation Regulation 5 and consequently Regulation 10. In the present case, the false information, being the suppression of the petitioner’s conviction in a criminal case was not in relation to any of the aspects mentioned in Regulation 6(xxx). Therefore, the suppression of such information by the petitioner does not fall, stricto sensu, within the acts and omissions enumerated in Regulation 6 to qualify as a misconduct under that provision inviting the applicability of Regulations 5 and consequently, Regulation 10. On the other hand, the attestation form itself made it clear that false information furnished and factual information suppressed in the said form would invite the liability for termination on that ground. This was obviously based on the general principle that such fraudulent suppression of information or furnishing of false information would vitiate the very appointment. Therefore, the suppression of his conviction in a criminal case by the petitioner was rightly dealt with by the APGENCO on general principles and not under Regulation 10. It is not as if the APGENCO did not put the petitioner on notice and afford him an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice pointing out the suppression of his conviction in a criminal case and was asked to submit his explanation thereto. Only thereafter, the APGENCO, having considered his explanation, resorted to the termination of the petitioner from service on the ground of the said suppression. In such circumstances, I do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he was entitled to the procedural safeguards provided in Regulation 10 (2) of the Regulations in terms of holding a disciplinary enquiry before imposition of the penalty. In KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN V/s. RAM RATAN YADAV[1], the Supreme Court held that suppression of material information and making of a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of an incumbent in relation to his continuation in service. The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are apposite: “… The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not.” Similarly in A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V/s. KONETI VENKATESWARULU[2], the Supreme Court reiterated that a person who indulged in suppressio veri and suggestion falsi and obtained employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in R.RADHAKRISHNAN V/s. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE[3] . In view of the aforestated legal position, it cannot be said that the disciplinary action taken by the APGENCO in the light of the suppression of his conviction in a criminal case by the petitioner was unwarranted or excessive. Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in PAWAN KUMAR V/s. STATE OF HARYANA[4], wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: “14. Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that punishment of fine up to a certain limit, say up to Rs.2,000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in Government service. This can brook no delay, whatsoever.” It is no doubt true that the criminal offence in which the petitioner was involved was not of a substantial nature though it involved imprisonment in addition to payment of fine. But the fact remains that was convicted and he suppressed this information while filling the attestation form. Unless the effect of such a conviction is watered down or diluted by legislative intervention, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in PAWAN KUMAR, it must be treated as a conviction for all purposes. Therefore, this decision is of no avail to the petitioner. The action of the APGENCO in terminating the services of the petitioner under the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2002 and the dismissal of the appeal against the same by order dated 23.08.2002 are therefore unassailable on facts and in law. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. ____OCTOBER, 2009. PGS [1] (2003) 3 SCC 437 [2] (2005) 7 SCC 177 [3] (2008) 1 SCC 660 [4] AIR 1996 SC 3300