DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1730/2001. Case: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Rajesh Kumar and Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1730/2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Adv.and For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the Respondent No. 1 |
| Judges | R.M. Lodha and M.C. Sharma, JJ |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 311(2); Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860) (IPC) - Sections 279, 337 |
| Citation | 2007 (3) ILR 285 (Raj) |
| Judgement Date | August 29, 2007 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. On 8th May, 1991, the present petitioner (for short, 'the employer') issued an order appointing the present respondent No. 1 (for short, 'the employee') to the post of Safaiwala in the scale of Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940. The appointment letter mentions that his appointment was against temporary post but likely to be made permanent. The appointment letter provided that the appointee would make declaration as per Schedule I annexed thereto and that his appointment was subject to the character and antecedent verification by the District Magistrate. Pursuant thereto, the employee gave declaration in Schedule I. Against the column, as to whether he has been fined by any court, the employee mentioned 'No'. So also against the column, as to whether any criminal offence has been proved against him before the court, the employee mentioned 'No'. For the verification of the employee's character and antecedents, the matter was referred to the office of District Magistrate. The District Magistrate referred the matter pertaining to the employee's character and antecedents to the police authorities who found that criminal challan against the employee was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 12 (380/90) on 16th November, 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said criminal case, as regards the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, the offence was compounded. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed by the said court on the employee. Thus, the employer got the report from the Office of the District Magistrate that the employee has concealed facts regarding the aforesaid criminal case. Upon receipt of the report from the office of District Magistrate on 25th November, 1992, the employee was issued notice on 1st February, 1993, by the employer informing him that he concealed the material fact of Criminal Case No. 380/1990 wherein a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed on him for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. He was asked to show cause within three days of the said letter, failing which he was warned that appropriate action would be taken against him.
2. Upon receipt of the notice dated 1st February, 1993, the employee sent his reply. His explanation was that being an illiterate person he was not aware as to what information was required to be given by him concerning his character and antecedents. He did not commit any offence involving moral turpitude. As regards offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and imposition of fine, he stated that did not make him ineligible in the government service.
3. Upon receipt of the employee's reply, the employer by the order dated 10th October, 1994 terminated his service.
4. The order dated 10th October, 1994 was challenged by the employee before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal').
5. The Tribunal allowed the original application by its order 25th January, 2001 holding that the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India were not followed; the order being stigmatic without following the provisions of Article 311(2), the petitioner's service could not have been terminated. It is this order which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial