C.W.P.No.16964 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16964 of 2006 Date of Decision : 05.02.2008 Ex.Constable Rajiv Kumar .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.2.2006, Annexure P-3 and the order dated 20.7.2006, Annexure P-4 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated on account of non- disclosure of the criminal case pending against him at the time of his appointment with the respondents. In pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 2003, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Constable/Bigular. Column No.12 of the application form was to the effect whether the C.W.P.No.16964 of 2006 2 applicant has ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? The petitioner has filled “NO” in the said column. The application form also contemplates that if the fact of false information having been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice, at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. In pursuance of the application form filled in and the declaration given by the petitioner in the said application form, the petitioner was appointed as Constable on temporary basis vide letter dated 22.10.2003, Annexure P-1. On 17.2.2006, when the petitioner was posted at Group Centre Unit at Diphu (Assam), the petitioner was served with the termination order. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to him nor any show cause notice was served upon him before passing the said order. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 20.7.2006. In the order in appeal, it has been pointed out that the criminal case arising out of the FIR No.246 dated 15.12.2001, under Sections 324/325/34 IPC, P.S. Indri, was pending against the petitioner and that the petitioner concealed this fact at the time of his appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that he was falsely involved in the said case and the offence under Sections 323/325/34 IPC do not relate to C.W.P.No.16964 of 2006 3 moral turpitude and thus, the termination of the petitioner is without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of a matter which does not relate to moral turpitude and the same is liable to be set-aside. During the course of hearing of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the FIR No.246 dated 15.12.2001, under Sections 323/325/34 IPC, P.S. Indri, which led to termination of his services, has since been quashed vide order dated 23.1.2008 in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said FIR has been quashed as the parties have entered into a compromise dated 16.9.2007. No doubt, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was served upon him before the passing of the order of termination dated 17.2.2006, but the fact that the petitioner has not disclosed the pendency of criminal case against him as a consequent to lodging of FIR No.246 dated 15.12.2001 under Sections 323/325/34 IPC, P.S. Indri, is not disputed. Once the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was facing prosecution in the said FIR, the petitioner was bound to disclose the factum of such FIR in his application form. Having failed to do so, the petitioner has with-held the material information consequence of which is stipulated in the application form itself. Therefore, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has not disclosed the criminal case pending against him, it cannot be said that the order of termination of services of the petitioner is liable to be quashed for the reasons that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. C.W.P.No.16964 of 2006 4 Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to release the salary for the notice period and other allowances, if already not paid, within a period of one month from today. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 05-02-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE