^- < IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETCTCON f5) N0r7.f.[&.../2010 PETCTIONER :^ Sagar Ram Yadav, Son of Shn' burdeshi Ram Yadav, aged about 46 years, R/o. Village Sonpairi, P.0. Mohadi, P.5. Magarlod, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.6.), VERSUS RESPONbENTS ^ ,^^ ^/'^<OJ ^<y ^..'< / /^ 7 .\^* ^ t^i^\ '^ \ • B.. \^y ^l. State of ChhattiS9arh, Thrugh: The Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.6.). _, 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Area Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.6.), ^3. Ranger (Forest Ran9e), Uttar Singpur, District Dhamtari (C.G.), WRITPETCTEON UNDER ARTCCLE 226 OF THE COUNSTETUTION OF INblA, 'f?. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7116 of20 10 : Sagar Ram Yadav. \?ERSUS RE8PONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh& Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : SB: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Agmhotri, J, Present: Sbri R-S.Patel, Advpcate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/ respondents, ORDERIQRAD (Passed on 25m day of January,2011) 1. By this petition, fhe petitioner seeks a writ of certiorai'i to set aside the order dated 16,09.2010 (Amiexure P/l) whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 2. The facts, in nutshell as projected by the petitioner is fhat the petitioner was imtially appointed on daily wages basis. Thereailer, he was regulanzed onthe post ofForest Chowkidar, by order dated 30.08.2008 (AnnexureP/2). Earlier, the petitioner was convicted forthe offence pumshable under section 13 ofthe Public Gambling Act, 1867 (^r short 'theAct, 1967r) aiid was senteneed wifh a fine ofRs. 100/-. Smce the said fact was not mentioned iii the attestation form, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 16.09.2010 (Aimexure P/l). 3, Leamed coimsel appeai'ing for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondent authorities by dismissing him from service is iliegal, arbitrary an4 unconstitutional. The punishment ofdismissal from service is also disproportionate as the leamed Judicial Magistrate First Class has sentenced fme of only Rs. lOOA and J; 6. ^> further, the petitioner was also not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the pimitive order ofdismissal. On the otlier hand, Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits tliat it is undisputed that the petitioiier was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 13 ofthe Act^ 1967. It is mandatory for an employee to give correct details at the time ofappointmcnt. The petitioner has suppressed tlie fact with regard to his conviction and sentence before the order of regularization was passed. Thus, the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service. Even otherwise, clause 2 of the appointment order dated 30.08.2008 (Annexure P/2) clearly states that if on character verification by the police department, ifany adverse remark is fbund, the eniployee shall be removed from sendce at once. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed tfie pleadings and documents appended thereto. On pemsal of the order dated 16.11.2007, it is evident fhat tfie petitioner has accepted his giiilt and has beeh convicted wifh a fine ofRs. 100/- forthe offence punishable under section 13 ofthe Act, 1967. The petitioner has not disclosed this fact to the employer before the order of regularization was passed on 30.08.2Q08. Furtlier, as per clause 2 ofthe appointaient order, it is evident that ifany adverse remas<k is found on police veriilcation, the employee may be teniiinated from seryice at once. In fhe mstant case, it was for the eniployee himself to come with clean hands before the respondent authorities and he ought to have disclosed fhe fact with regardto his conviction and sentence. te<!;;.,.3^ 7, The identical issue came up for hearing before this Court m Sandeep Kzimar Mishra v. State of C.G. & Others asid Ram Chandra Sahu v. State ofC.G. & Others2, wherein this Court, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. , Kendriya Vidyakiya Sangathan & Others v. Ram RatanYadav, Secy. Dept. ofHome Secy. A.P. & Others v. B. Chinnam Naidu5, heid that petitioner has deliberately concealed tilie facts as he has made deliberate omission in the application fbi-m as well as in the attestation form. Thus, this was a case ^f suppression veri and suggetio falsi, and as such, fhe petitioner was not entitled to contmuation m service. 8. Ilie facts ofthis case is identical to that of Sandeep Kumar Mishra (supra) andRam Chandra Sahu (supra) 3^ the petitioner, in his attestation form has not mentioned anythmg with regard to his conviction and sentence. Thus^ the petitioner is not entitled to continuation mse^ice and the impugned order of dismissal from service isjust, proper, warrants no mterference. 9. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, fhe writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ashok 1 2007(1) CGLJ 440 2 2007(2) CGLJ 245 3 (1997) 10 SCC 538 4 (2003) 3 SCC 437 5 (2005) 2 SCC 746