IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7203 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OA.829/2006 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/(RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.829/2006): -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE AIR OFFICER COMMANDING, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 5 BASE REPAIR DEPOT, AIR FORCE STATION, SULUR, COIMBATORE-641 401. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL . RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE OA NO.829/06: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- N.SUJI PRASAD, PANANKALA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7203 OF 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The respondents in O.A.No.829/2006 before the C.A.T Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The applicant in the O.A. is the respondent. 2. The applicant was selected and appointed as Safaiwala under the 2nd petitioner and he joined duty on 7.2.2004. Before joining duty, on 1.2.2002 he made a declaration in a prescribed form before the appointing authority. Column (j) of the declaration reads as follows: “Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form?” The applicant answered the above question in the negative. Later, upon police verification it was found that the applicant was an accused in Crime No.47/1997 of Pozhiyoor Police Station registered under Sections 419 and 34 of the IPC, in which, the police filed WPC.7203/08 . 2 charge sheet before the Juvenile court, Trivandrum on 20.5.1999. It was also revealed that in Crime No.157/01 of the very same police station registered under Sections 144, 146, 427, 323, 357, 506 (ii), 342 and 34 of the IPC, charge sheet was filed on 30.1.2002. Based on that report, service of the applicant was terminated by Annexure- A6 order. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the applicant approached the C.A.T by filing the above O.A. The Tribunal found that while making the declaration on 1.2.2002 the applicant was not aware of the two criminal cases pending before the criminal court concerned. Therefore, the declaration made by the applicant was held to be not vitiated. Based on that finding, the C.A.T quashed the termination order. The aggrieved respondents in the O.A have filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Sri. T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, contended that since crimes were registered long before the declaration was made, it should be taken that cases were pending before the court against the respondent herein, who was the applicant before the C.A.T. We find it difficult to agree with the said contention. If a crime is registered by the police and the first information report is forwarded to the magistrate court WPC.7203/08 . 3 concerned, it cannot be said that a criminal case is pending against him in that court of law. A case can be said to be pending only after filing of the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C charge sheeting the accused by the police. In this case, in the first crime the final report was ready by 20.5.1999, but it was produced before the court only on 1.2.2003. The endorsement made by the court in the final report was on 26.4.2003. Obviously only thereafter the process would have been issued to the accused. So, when making the declaration on 1.2.2002 the applicant cannot be held to know of the final report. In the second case, the police filed the charge sheet before the court on 30.1.2002. In that case summons for appearance would have been issued only at least a few days after the filing of the charge sheet on 30.1.2002. Only on receipt of the summons, the applicant would be knowing about the pendency of the case. Therefore, when he makes a declaration on 1.2.2002 he was not aware of the pendency of the second criminal case before the court of law. Thus while making the declaration on 1.2.2002, the applicant had no knowledge of any case pending against him in any court of law. So, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the impugned order. We fully agree with the reasons and conclusion of the Tribunal. WPC.7203/08 . 4 In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl