1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4750 OF 2009 (Ranjeet C. Gajbhate vs. State and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M.REIS, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 26, 2009 Heard Shri Kidilay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby original application of the petitioner came to be dismissed. Shri Kidilay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner was appointed as Police Constable and at later point of time, i.e. after about seven months, respondents terminated the 2 service of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner while submitting attestation form suppressed material information about his prosecution under Section 12-A of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. It is submitted that action of the respondents is inconsistent with the Government resolution dated 16.3.2006. It is contended that as per the said Government Resolution, a Committee is constituted and norms are also prescribed, which the Committee has to consider before taking decision in this regard. It is submitted that though matter of the petitioner was placed before the Committee, however, the Committee failed to take into consideration those norms, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has also not taken into consideration these facts and, therefore, the impugned order is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, has supported the impugned order and contended that petitioner willfully and intentionally suppressed information 3 about his prosecution, which was noticed by the Department at later point of time and, therefore, service of the petitioner came to be terminated. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in fact was prosecuted for the above referred offence. It is also not in dispute that in attestation form, the petitioner did not mention about the prosecution. As per the norms prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 16.3.2006, if the information is willfully and deliberately suppressed, in that event, the employee is not entitled to be continued in service. The petitioner, who had applied for job in Police Department, was otherwise a man of normal intelligence and it cannot be said that he was either ignorant or was not aware about his own prosecution, which at the relevant time, was pending in the competent criminal Court. It is on the basis of these undisputed facts, if inference is drawn by the Committee that suppression of information was intentional, it is difficult for us to find fault with such inference drawn by the Committee. The 4 conclusion arrived at by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in our view, is just and proper and needs no interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj