1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 515 of 2001 SURENDRA KUMAR V/S LABOUR COURT & INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL & ANR Mr. GR PUNIA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ARUN BHANSALI, for the respondent Date of Order : 15.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 1.5.2001 whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota dt. 16.3.2001 in which the order of termination of his services from the post of Fireman Rajasthan Atomic Power Project was justified on a reference made to it by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was a mere probationer, and during the period of probation it was revealed that he concealed the material fact about his arrest prior to seeking appointment. Since the appellant was appointed in a sensitive department and 2 by concealing material fact about the criminal proceedings while seeking appointment amounts to grave misconduct, the writ petition was dismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant came to know only about the ground of termination when the reply was filed. In termination order no reference of criminal proceeding was given. It was also contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner omitted to disclose the fact of pendency of criminal prosecution against him, or his having been arrested, still that by itself cannot be sufficient ground to terminate the services. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal reported in (1999) 2 SCC-247, and Union of India Vs. Sudeep Kumar Mohanty reported in (2005) 12 SCC-221. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC-437, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu reported in (2005) 7 SCC-177, and the larger Bench decision of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported 3 in 2000(2) WLC(Raj.)-400. We have gone through the law cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and examined the peculiar facts of this case. It is a settled law that concealment of fact specially with regard to criminal proceedings while seeking appointment is a good ground for terminating services of an employee. Here in the present case as held by the learned Single Judge, department from where the services of the appellant has been terminated is of a sensitive nature, and he was appointed on probation for a period of one year, and thereafter his services were extended for six months. During extended period of probation, the Department terminated his services without assigning any reason, and the reason which is said to have been disclosed in the reference is with regard to concealment of fact with regard to his arrest prior to seeking appointment. The learned Labour Court took evidence on this point in which the appellant admitted in his cross examination that he was bailed out in a criminal case vide Annexure-7. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he came to know of this fact only at the time of reply, and actually he was not the person who was arrested, 4 and prosecuted is devoid of force. In Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda's case the employee had obtained employment by concealing the pendency of prosecution while replying column 27, the prosecution was for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. As appears from that judgment successive show cause notices were given to the employee, and the employer Bank also thought it fit to await the decision of the criminal proceedings. However, after conviction by the trial court the employee was terminated. He was then acquitted by the High Court. The Labour Court set aside the termination, and ordered reinstatement. That order was upheld by High Court, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, but then it was specifically directed that this order is rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and will not be treated as a precedent in future. In that view of the matter, this judgment is of no assistance to the appellant. Then, Sudeep Kumar Mohanty's case is again a case on its own facts, as the provisions of Section 44 of the Air Force Act were considered, whereunder if any person who wilfully gives a false answer, on conviction by court martial, is liable to suffer imprisonment which may extend upto 5 years. Then, it was noticed that the limitation for such proceedings is 3 years, and it was found that finding of fact has been recorded that the appellant became aware of the pendency of the criminal case way back in 1991, and dismissal was 5 ordered in the year 1996. Then, the recommendations made by the Station Commander and the Officiating Commander about the hard work and trouble free services of the employee were also considered, and the reinstatement ordered by the High Court was upheld. As against this in the present case there are no such circumstances. Then coming to the judgments cited on the side of the respondents. Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal's case (supra) while taking support from the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court it has been held as under:- “Apart from the ratio of the said cases, in dealing with and considering as to what amounts to moral turpitude, the Circular 29.4.1995 in the absence of definition of moral turpitude, clarifies the position consistent with the Rules. As already discussed above,if the rules 13, 15 and the said Circular are read together, no doubt would be left whatsoever in arriving at the conclusion that suppression of material information required, for finding desirability, antecedents and character of a candidate to be inducted in police force, entitles an employer to deny appointment.” Then, in Ram Ratan Yadav's case again while filling in attestation form, as against column 12(I) answer “No” was given, which was a column relating to the information about prosecution, or conviction of the applicant. The incumbent in that case was being prosecuted for the offence under Section 323, 341, 294, 506-B read 6 with Section 34 IPC. The explanation of the employee was that he studied in Hindi medium, and therefore, could not understand distinction prosecution and conviction, and therefore, under misconceived notion the answer was given. On that basis when the employee was terminated, the termination was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal interalia held that the Courts/Tribunals are not to pat a person on his shoulders in a case where he is making false statement to the authorities concerned for obtaining employment. Then, High Court set aside the termination holding that the non mention of pendency of criminal case can be for reasons stated by the petitioner, the offence did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying the employee from seeking the employment. Setting aside that order Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly found that giving of information “No” is plainly suppression of material information, and it it is a false statement. Then, it was held that the requirement of filling the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of career, and antecedents of the incumbent as on the date of filling of attestation form. Suppression of material information, and making false statement has a clear bearing on the career and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuation in service. Then, since the High Court proceeded on the basis of judgment in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda's case Hon'ble the Supreme Court expressed its anguish, and restored the termination. 7 Likewise in Koneti Venkateswarullu's case also the suppression was about information regarding his previous employment, and on that information being found incorrect the employee was terminated, which termination was maintained, and interalia it was observed, that if the candidate indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. Even considering the employee to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, all that indulgence that was shown was, that Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not impose cost. Therefore, the law cited above by the learned counsel for the appellant is not helpful to him, in contrast to the law referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. That apart present is a case where even during trial before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant had audacity to deny having been prosecuted, or having remained in custody, when being suggested in the cross- examination, and it was only the result of growling cross examination, that he had to admit to have furnished bail bonds. This conduct is clearly in line with the conduct noticed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Koneti Venkatswarulu's case, to be viewed against the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this 8 appeal, and the same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/