M HKEH COURT OF CHHATT!$GARH A? BELASPUR rit Agnew N052 gf 201 D i i APPELLANT: 3h erai Kumar Thakur S/o Sm KL” ar Smgh aged about 35 years R/q Ra}a Para Kanker Distnct Kanker(CG ‘ ‘ Vemus ‘ RESPONDENTS: Siatp of Chhattlsgarh Through Secretary, Department 0f Law & -egssgatwe Affairs DKS Bhawan Qaxpu‘CG; The Dustnct and Qessmns Judve Kanxer Bstnci Kankea The Cois'ector, EistrQct Kanker, Kanker (CG) ‘ The Pubiic Prwecutor, omce of the Additiona! Public Prosecmor, D§stt. Kanker (CG) P resent 8hr: mdrasen Sahu counsei for the appellant Shn S K Mishra Pane! Lawyer forthe respandents Hon’bie Shri RN. Cheadrakagr. J J u D G M E m T (8—3-2010) 1. This wrn" apnea vs directed agamet the :mnuuned arder dated 18-2- 7010 passed an WW3) No 6G97/2GDQ whereby the appegants wnt eeimm cha engmg the §ega ty and vaigdty of the order dated b 1G- 2009 (Annemre-P/hpaesed by the Prinr‘ipa! Secretary, Law and Legtetatwe Aftatrs Depattment Government of Chhaftaagarh Ratpuf terminating the serwces of the petitioner has been diem ssed . Leamed counset for the appeitant submitted that the erder 9f termtnetten has been passed without any nbttce to the appeitant aed x W ; Dwasmn Banach: Hon’hie $hri Dhirendra Misha. & J, . 'w§thaut foimwing principies of natural justice. The appe§lant was apgminted in February, 2007 after foimwimg due process of recru§€ment He was terminated fram the service vid order dated 5-10—20G9 cnSy an the greund that he had conceaied the fact that he was convicted under Seetton 13 at the'Gembttng Act in a criminai case end a fine ef Rs.109/— was imeoeed‘ The aforesaid otder has been. passed withoet gtving any opportunity to show cause end the act of emission and , eommission on the pert of the respendent- State authorities ts in vtoiation of Articte 14 of the Genstitution of india Reliance is pieced-in the matter of Kamai Mayan Mtsht‘a Vs. State of NLP. & 03‘s. {201 O AIR SCVV 31 5}. e have heardteamed counsel for the appetiant. in :Kemat Nayen Mishra (Supra), the appeiient was appointed as peon on 24—?4980. Nearty a decade thereafter, he was charge—sheeted in a i criminai case for certain offences, however, he was acquitted. He was caiied upon to submit an attestation form in the year 1994 giving his personei data with regard to his educationai quaiifioations, antecedents ete. However, whiie fitting the said form, he did not mention about his prosecution in a criminai case anti beoause of the aforesaid fact he was terminated from the service in these circumstances, it was heici that since the terms of the attestation form eontempiated termination without notice or inquiryoniyiin‘ the context ofturnishing faise' information in and around the time of the appointment, the appeiiant was benefideiy under the impression that he was required to give eartiouiars sought in cotumn—tiz ofthe form with reference to the date -e of his appointment. v V W .. , r 5‘ if§oweyen in 'the' in$tant case, clause-5 0f the order of appointment ¢¥early mentions that if information furniéihed by the candidate is found tn be fatse, services of the candidatg ‘wouid be terminated with immediate effect. Thus, the facts of th t judgment’retied upon by the appettant has no appticatton in the facts 9f the present case. o. We find no ground for entertaining this éppeat, the same deserves to he and ie accordtngty dismissed at the admission stage itsetf. X/f Few SdL Sd/- i ItN-CEUEHHUHUHL . (LS Dhirendra Mishta » i i Judge ' i Judge