9 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR_,(C.G.) WRIT PETITION s No. 264m 2009 PETITIONE Abhishek Singh Son of Shri Hanuman Singh, aged about 27 years, Resident of Near Old R.T.O. Office, Bauripara, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.). District VERSUS Statebf Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of‘ Home, D.K.S‘. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS ,The Director General of Police, Headquatter, Raipu Police (C.G.). he Inspector General of Police, Police’ Headqualter Raipur (C.G.). Te Superinendent of Police, District mbikapur, Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION F IND R / / r T h t A O IA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B$LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 7204 OF 2009 ’ ETITIONER Abhishek Singh P Versus R ESPONDENTS State cf Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under'Articie 226 of the Constitution cf india) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihatri, J. Present :- Shri VK. Pandey, counsei for the petitioner. Shri MRS. Bhatia; Dy‘ Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 16k“ day of March, 2010) 1. With the consent of teamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finaiiy. 2. By this petition, the petitioner ohalienges the iegaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 19~11-2009 (Annexure — PH) passed by the Director General of Poiice. Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby and whereunder the appeai preferred by v the petitioner against the order dated 26-3-2009 (Annexure - 9/2) has been rejected. The petitioner also challenges the 1‘ iegaiity'and validity of‘the order dated 2o-3-2009 passed by the Superintendent of Poiice, Surguja, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was removed from the‘post'of i Constable. 3. The facts, in brief. as projected by the petitioner, for adjudication of the case,- are that pursuant to the advertisement iSsued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner appiied for the post of 6onstable (GD). On being selected in the selection process, the petftioner was appointed onrthe post of Constable by order dated 1-9-2008 (Annexure — P/8). According to the petitioner, prior to his appointment an ofence punishabie under Sections 452, 294, 506-“ and 324 f read with Section 34 of the indian Pena! Code was tegiered against him, but due to bone fide mistake the said st at has not been mentioned in the appiication form. fc However, on 30-9-2608 i.e. after appointment of the tioner, the said fact has been brought before the resndent authorities aiong withraffidavit. Thereafter. the po eitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid offence by the pt judgent dated 23-1 0-2008 (Annexure — Pi6) passed by the m 4‘“ dditiona! $essions Judge (Fast Track Court), A Ambipur, District Surguja, in Sessions Triai No.7?i08 (State of Chhattisgam v. Hanuman Singh & Others). in spite o the said‘facts, the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, by f order dated 26-3-2009 removed the petitioner from the service on the ground that petitioner has suppressed the mateal fact about redistration of crrmrnai charges aoamet ri him Against the said order the petitioner preferred an aopeat before the Director General of Police Chhattrsoarh Rlpur which was rejected by order dated 19-11-2009. a, Thus, this petition. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that tt i t duty of the authority’concerned to give opportunity to s he peti ka show cause to adversely affected person. in the present ’ case the petiticner has been removed after completion of Six months of service, without complying with the principles of natural lustice. The action of the respondent authorities ts contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. On the other hand, learned counsei appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information with regard to registration of criminal charges against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506-lleand 324 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code. Thus, suppression of the materiai information entail removal from service, as ciearly prescribed in the appointment order. The petitioner has not attempted to remove the mistake prior to his appointment. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. it is evident that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in‘the application form. The petitioner had submitted the information oniy after his appointment. The candidate suppressing material information andi‘or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer has discretion to terminate his service. in the case on hand, the criminal charges were framed against the petitioner before making the appiication forseiection. The petitiqner deiiberateQy, concealed the facts. Thus, it i3 a case of .suprresio ven‘ and suggestio faisi and further, even if by ignorance, ethe petitioner has faiied to submit the information‘ he ought to have submitted the correct information iater on before the date of his seiection. Thus, no notice is required to be is‘sued to the petitioner before passing the order of termination, where the facts are admitted or not in dispute. The Supreme Court in Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. 8: Qthers‘, observed as under. “22. The principle of nature! justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle. of estoppet wili apply. (See Gurjeewan Garewai (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash) The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein, it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. it cannot be appliedin a r—vaccum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (See State of. Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC Vs. S.(G. Kotturappa)”. 10. The ratio laid down in Viveka Nand Sethi (supra) was A referred with approval ln P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of ‘ tndia and Others? . The Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav3, observed as under : “12. The object of requiring information in coiumns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate t (26%) 5 scc 337 2 (2006) 8 soc 776 3 (2003) :3 soc 437 was ta aSGeraIn and venfv te character and antecedent; to judge his suitabihty to continue ln serwce A candidate haVIng’ suppressed material Information and/e givmg false information cannot claim right t0 contmue m servsce The employer havmg _ regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terr1rnate his servrce, wlch Is made expressly clear m para 9 of the offer of ,aPPomtment The purpose of seekmar mfonnatmn as per columns 12 and 13 was not to iind out either the nature or gravrty o \ te ‘ence e a! case he said :the cha cter iand‘ antecedents cf thei‘ res ntmue In serwce or This Court ln Sandeep KumarMIshr Qtt'ers observed that “the petrticrrer had “warned fhe appointment by suppressmg Information and submitting false information Thus the semces of the petitioner was - ghtlv termmated b‘ na in wolatron of the condition No 4 of - ' the appointment order Applying the well-settled prmcrples of iaw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned heremabove this petition Is mentless and ‘s such the petitioner ls not entitled to any relref. in the result, the writ petition fails and ishereby dismissed here shall be no order‘asto costs. Sd/- \ Satlsh K Ag Judge 2? ('i) CGLJ 44 G6 0 t h r v. ~ v ; h ‘. " T: , "“’i . f ' u h on r th result of a e ' m - " t r t gan o a v State of C G & n . T mhmn ‘ t