:^ ••^c;' 'ilNS •;;s| IN; SSS 'HEOH gGQgS,. ©?-..roai^'PETl®.:A3./.miSS^R. < 'teis.EBssTiaN sa, ^[2-£> ®p,200 as«B s» •II^a^.^Al ,:S^;.r }^s;to' naff-MteIta«:,,'^a^ '23' ys^ssS^ eisaiapation'^Ssas^saBe,'' ^asseB'tsI.'y; sssS.Qff'aV^e •' '.^l.lji^l- ^jB-i@?^^^ ^.^p^-wa !g*E ( •--^ ^••' :w<®.-"©'1 t.**'::'' •• • " t? SlisS-. Sta^a-;o'ff- :(^lia'tl3tS®a'a&» ^ •feteoB®!*'tiis' §asTel8ai?y of;'a?me^ - AESeiiis^.Kaaiaitay,'- :i®.K.s;l e • Bl.a8a'feB»..@ePa6a.^e:g :Sb3.I cs,' Sol SjSQ'^SsSaskac^.-'saSsiws {es) . 3?:' - .:afee,;^at^ioaa3;' 'SsRemI, aff %>'l;lae> ©3,' »2aai^Sa'trta3.3.0n: St»ffs@,'''gaKBij'.te3.as!EWlB''::(;®3)'. IU@®e<i f-:VISSS3Sm'S6Sc'SSBSR KS!3SSSS8fSt&/2rT.'We.JiWS- S&NS'ES.aJ.ISEQNj AF^ A.2.•"7 HI6H COURTaF CHHATnseARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4720 of 2004 Petitioner Respondents Versus Sandeep Kumar Mishra The State of Chhatt'isgarh ond o-thers \ c Single Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Mr.AwadhTripathi,Advocdteforthepetitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/S'hate. ORbER ind (Passed on 2"" Day of February, 2007) The foltowing order offhe Courtwas passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was Selected for cppointment on the post of Constable (6.D.) in Commantfant, 2 Battalion, Q\h<xtt'isgo,rh Armed Forces, Sakri, District-Bilaspur, vide order dated 5.8.2004 CAnnexureP/1), temporarily on the pay scafe of Rs. 3050-75-3980- 80-4590. The condition of the appointment was that the servicesof the petitioner could be terminated with one month's notice or " payment of one month's salary in tieu of hotice. His services could be terminated if, verification/attestation form was found fdlse, subsequently or on discovery ofdny information with regard to his character verification, which makes the petrtioner unsui'tabfe fprithe ,^>. job. ~i ^J 2. Vide orcter dated 23.9.2004 (Annexure P/2), the servicesof the petitioner was removed with one month's satary on the ground of yiolation of the condition No. 4 whereunder, -the petitioner had submitted fatse information in the attestation form. The charge sheet for offences punishabte under Sections 341,323, 294, 5068 ond 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against •the ®petitioner, which resultecl into compromiseon 17.4,2001 in the Court- of Chief Judicial Mdgistrate, Mahasamund (Annexure P/4). 3. In theatt'estation form (Annexure R-l) ColumnNo. 12 required certain infopmation. Column No. 12 of the said attestation from'was fifed by the petitioner as under;- "12. (?P) ^qT Wq ^ft Pl'i1>,dl< ^I Wj' t I qqi 3(PI 1R qi^ft arRratuR 'gcirai 'nvf t | ^IT snq s^ft Plih^ fe<? iui t w amri ysfviw fifff ^rar t l ami w ^rf-iT ^IT ^rer t | w sn firrft arawT ^ fti^ "qiiiiE-i-ti gro ^Nt cis^ ^ f qr amret ^St <ft dNi ^qr arrahr ST'ET 'a^ SRT <i?iiRi(t iiOwa^/l^? 'w^ qi^ ^ppfF 4 <u("iRta sH ^ qfSfg I^IT ''nn' f/^a^ ftp? sn^ dg<i4i ^rar €'an' w ainrat ft^ft ift Rs<<Raici<i w f^ft rft 3^21 stsffSR? wRfSBW/WWn SRT f^St ift 11-fttST 4 ta^ ^ qf^cr feqr ^PIT t/Pib*iRtd i^vf ^rar t i ^f >• j^a) ^tr ^ET <tt'yiii"M wf ^ »R^ WPI fe'dt vft *<ii'qi<?i<i, R%<tRElt<rf<l ~Vf l^nft tft •?t6ffi>W UlRl<b'i"t/1ffWT 4 aiW ft'Si®^t^ ttllpll d'f^d t I ilft (??) swqr (^) 4 ^B? ^ iiyTF ?& ^sraff ^ snW 3nR ST 4 st dt <yi4*1 S<H <D^U*)|U|-< iffpf %t w^ wra ifn^sr PRi^aril I^Rhr ^I»N ^lNRtti g«ir s'sr^r anf^ ^ ^ aft^ wgg ^^ w(Ss <iw sw iBpf %T »i^wiq "qi<tlcl.q/ftwRai(?lfl/!tTI8l"ltb uiRitx"! 3iri% ^ wisr uft *<t*ldl d'Rrt st dO'lal iW<hl| «Wdl-)l i|lT§l{ ,L- y^ se- ^H uiii<t>i-R ^ <uRR<w uTgr pfp^ st qsf Pl**iRiRdd sgt^ <ft f^ uii>i'T- ^fS i. apRTET/aiRhi ^f 2. ^fSre arr^ ^ 4'nnPld ^fS 3. qf^ "!|1<11<?1« 4 qi5fT-I V^ f^qi ^qT ^ (ft "qi^leW ^T ^m •I^f 4- 'V^ Vf VW "<1141<?l't| gRT ^RTOT ptUdl'it fe^I grite ^t f^raff ;TOT I 'I^T 5. Rw irar cfos ^fS e. 1ror <;T«<y<kt s^ fiiw •vm | ^f 7. ctlq^Ra weis 1S 'oim w 3(nnft(f aft w 'w^off ^ Rpir Trer aiT 1 ^fS TTie petitioner despite being charge dieeted for the offences stated above filled-up 'No' every where. It appears +hat with clear intention of concealing the facts, the petitioner filled-up the formas aforestated.It was contended by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had not suppressed any material or given false information when theapplication was filed. 4. Leamed counsel oppearing for the respondents/State, per contra, submitted that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information with regard to charge sheet and thereafter with regard to his Chatlan and registration of the case in the Police Station for the offences (Supra) committed by him. (tequired information in Column No. 12 isspecific inquiry and it was case of noconfusion. The same was atso not the case of the petitioner. F.I.R. was filed,|the criminal case was registered, and the petitioner was arrestecl and released thereafter. Chatlan was filed in the Courtof Chief Judicial >: B : 4 ^ ll-il.i :iil.; >.. Magistrate, Mahasamund. Thus, suppression of these material informations entnit removal fromservice, ctearly prescribed in the appointment order. The petitioner had notatt'empted to remove the mistakevoluntarily. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleoKlings and documents appended •thereto. It is evident that the petitioner -s^:. *& 6. has given false informdtion in Column No. 12 of -the attestation form by stating 'No' in atl the sub columns. The petitioner had thereafter not submitted any representationoF filed a letter imniedutely, voluntarily to give the correct information. - In the case of Kendriya Vidyataya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yaday , the supreme Court- held in para 12 as under:- "12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the att-estation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascer-hain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his aiitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or givihg false information cannot claiffl right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nalure of the employment and atl othepdqaects had the discretjon to 6 terminate his service, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of theoffep ofappointfflent......^" | T-SSW r^H.'i TEe-;";?'.^-,; 'i7:s^'SS^^^^^ss^-;'in;^^£^^^~—' 7. Furtherinthematt'erofSecy,.(>eptt.ofHo(ne5ecy.. A.P. and others Vs. B. ChUmam Naidu , relied by learned counset appearing for -the petifioner, the Supreme Court- hetd as under:- "As is noted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan case the objeet of requirin9 in various cotumns like column 12 of the attestation form and declaration thereafter by the candidate ^,-'f- \:- is to ascertain and verify the diarocter and antecedents to judge hissuitability toenter into or continiie inservice. When a candidate ajppresses material information and/or gives fatse information, he cannot claim any right for-appointment or continuai^ce inservice. There con be no dispute to this position in law.......'' 8. The facts of the case of Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. and others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu (&ipra) was entirely different, os discussed by the Hon'bte &ipr'eme Court- in the said case, the candidate was not required to aibmit informotion asto whether he has arrested or any case uws pending. In the present case, Column No. 12 specificatly required information asto whether any ease was registeredinthePoliceStation.whe-thertheChatlon was filed in the Court-, if so, name of the Court-, date of the disposalof the case, punishment etc. TTle petitioner did not fill-up the required information. as such the final order passed in the case of Secy., Deptt-; of HomeSecy., A.P. ancf others Vs. B. Ghmnani'Naidu (Supra) > 1 ,/ being different is not applicable to the present case. The petitjoner had obtained the appointment by suppressing information ond submitting fatse information. Thus, the services of the petitioner tws rightly terminated being in viotation of the condition No. 4 of the appointment order. As a result, for the reasons heremabove, -the writ petition is dismissed summarily.No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t. {(2003)350; 437} 2. {(Z005)2Sa'746} Subhash >