# Jadhav Siddhodhan Ankush v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 44517 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jadhav-siddhodhan-ankush-v-union-of-india-ors-50307
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Termination
-
Misrepresentation - Central Civil Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - In
order to elicit truth of 'knowledge' directly
from the employee, given an opportunity,
he would be explaining his conduct and
that will do the needful. (Para 14)

Even though there is right to terminate the
service of employee who is charged of
furnishing false information and so there can be
no compulsion for the appointing authority to
continue
with
such
employee,
but
"McCarthyism"
is
antithesis
to
the
constitutional goal which of course is on
the bed-rock of reformative theory qua
the young offenders in suitable cases.
(Para 13)

Whenever a fact is to be enquired into as to
whether a candidate had the knowledge of a
criminal
case/proceeding
lodged/instituted
against him at the time he filled up the
application
form
seeking
selection
and
appointment on post advertised, the knowledge
factor becomes important. In order to elicit this
factum of knowledge of criminal case, it
becomes imperative to hold atleast a preliminary
fact finding enquiry even while an employee is
still on probation, and therefore, such an
employee must be put to a notice to explain his
conduct in the matter. (Para 15)

Thus, if concealment or alleged concealment for
want of knowledge of a candidate, in a criminal
case becomes a dominant factor to reject his
candidature and consequently to terminate him
from service, an order of termination may
be an order simpliciter termination but
department/employer must conform to
the principles of natural justice in its
action. It is held that continuance of an
employee
in
service
where
he
had
knowledge or no knowledge at the time of
filing up a form or signing the attestation
form, will be well within the discretion of
the employer. (Para 16)

It is considered appropriate for the authority to
give one opportunity to the petitioner to explain
his conduct and then to take action in
accordance with law. (Para 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471
(Para 4)

## Text

6 All. Jadhav Siddhodhan Ankush Vs. Union of India & Ors.
447
of Sri Govind Saran Dixit after his death.
Against the said order, Revision No. 11 of
2004 was filed by the petitioner-defendant,
which was rightly dismissed by the
impugned
order
dated
13.03.2023
specifially in light of fact that once
impleadment
of
Sri
Govind
Saran
Dixit(since deceased) is valid in law,
therefore, his legal heirs are also having
right to be impleaded to contest the case.

27.

Under
such
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I find no
illegality in the impugned orders dated
3.03.2023 and 26.04.2023.

28. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 44517 of 2016

Jadhav Siddhodhan Ankush ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gulab Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Nand Lal. U.O.I.

A.
Service
Law
-
Termination
-
Misrepresentation - Central Civil Services
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - In
order to elicit truth of 'knowledge' directly
from the employee, given an opportunity,
he would be explaining his conduct and
that will do the needful. (Para 14)

Even though there is right to terminate the
service of employee who is charged of
furnishing false information and so there can be
no compulsion for the appointing authority to
continue
with
such
employee,
but
"McCarthyism"
is
antithesis
to
the
constitutional goal which of course is on
the bed-rock of reformative theory qua
the young offenders in suitable cases.
(Para 13)

Whenever a fact is to be enquired into as to
whether a candidate had the knowledge of a
criminal
case/proceeding
lodged/instituted
against him at the time he filled up the
application
form
seeking
selection
and
appointment on post advertised, the knowledge
factor becomes important. In order to elicit this
factum of knowledge of criminal case, it
becomes imperative to hold atleast a preliminary
fact finding enquiry even while an employee is
still on probation, and therefore, such an
employee must be put to a notice to explain his
conduct in the matter. (Para 15)

Thus, if concealment or alleged concealment for
want of knowledge of a candidate, in a criminal
case becomes a dominant factor to reject his
candidature and consequently to terminate him
from service, an order of termination may
be an order simpliciter termination but
department/employer must conform to
the principles of natural justice in its
action. It is held that continuance of an
employee
in
service
where
he
had
knowledge or no knowledge at the time of
filing up a form or signing the attestation
form, will be well within the discretion of
the employer. (Para 16)

It is considered appropriate for the authority to
give one opportunity to the petitioner to explain
his conduct and then to take action in
accordance with law. (Para 17)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471
(Para 4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to
4.

2. The petitioner before this Court
was validly selected and appointed as
constable with Central Industrial Security
Force and given posting at its Unit N.C.L.
Indauli (M.P.). However, while he was
working
on
probation,
the
Senior
Commandant of CISF, Shakti Nagar,
District Sonebhadra passed an order under
the Central Civil Services (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965, by which his services
were terminated as per Clause 3 of the
Attestation Form filed by him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the attestation form which
he was required to submit at the time of his
appointment with respondent, there was
column no. 12 (b) which contained a clause
with recital "if you have ever been
prosecuted", and was to be answered in
either affirmative or negative. However,
due to inadvertent mistake, petitioner put
an astrick at word "No" instead world
'Yes'. He further submits that since
petitioner had been acquitted in a criminal
case instituted against him under Section
294, 352,506,509, 34 IPC , he thought that
it was not necessary to refer to the
prosecution case in which he was acquitted
wayback in the year 2010. In the said case
he claimed that petitioner had been
acquitted much prior to his application
submitted against vacancy in question. He
further submits that the order in question
though is termination simpliciter in nature
taking recourse to the provision of subrule
4 of Rule 36 of Central Industrial Security
Force Rules, 2001 and Rule 5 of the
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965, but lifting the veil the
foundation for passing the order has been
non disclosure of criminal case in which
petitioner was prosecuted sometimes back,
though acquitted in the year 2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and
Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein
Supreme Court was dealing with the matter
in which an employee who had not made
such disclosure was also acquitted .

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
contesting respondent submits that non
disclosure of criminal case in which
petitioner was prosecuted was well within
his knowledge and non disclosure thereof
would be taken to mean that he obtained
appointment by misrepresentation. He
submits that this is like a snatching of an
appointment and dislodging other eligible
candidate who might been possessed good
and clean character for having never been
even prosecuted in any criminal case.

6. It is further argued that it is a
discretion of employer to retain a candidate
or not if a candidate has not disclosed
criminal antecedents in the column meant
for the purpose and later on found to be
having criminal antecedents. He further
submits that even in Avtar Singh's case
(supra) this discretion of employer has
been retained and candidate even though if
is acquitted in the criminal case, cannot
make a rightful claim to appointment.

7. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the respndent that the petitioner
6 All. Jadhav Siddhodhan Ankush Vs. Union of India & Ors.
449
was still on probation, and therefore, his
service could have been terminated without
assigning any reason .

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, and their arguments raised
across the bar, the fact that I find to be
emerging out from the pleadings is that
services of the petitioner came to be
dispensed with in view of Clause 3 of the
attestation form. Clause 3 of the attestation
form declares that in the event any
information furnished is found to be false
or
concealed
then
services
can
be
terminated. The order of termination is
absolutely silent qua non disclosure of a
particular fact to the department. The order
if was passed was based upon paragraph 3
of the attestation form, it ought to have
detailed out reason for taking such action.
Having not assigned any reason, a mere
reliance upon Clause 3 would not do the
needful. The order of termination is sought
to be defended by way of pleadings raised
in the counter affidavit that fact regarding
criminal case had not been disclosed,
deliberately, and therefore, action had been
taken.

9. It is well settled law that no amount
of pleadings in the counter affidavit can
improve upon the order impugned in the
petition.

10. In my considered view, the
authority ought to have issued a notice
requiring petitioner to show cause as to
why his services may not be dispensed with
for non disclosure of particular criminal
case in attestation form. This having not
been done, the order in question cannot be
sustained in law.

11. It is a case where petitioner had
been alredy acquitted in a criminal case. I
find further that the order of appellate
authority has referred to criminal case
which was lodged against the petitioner and
other members of the family by a paternal
aunt. It was thus clear that it was in
connection with an internal family dispute
that some criminal case came to be
instituted and then crucial witness turned
hostile whereas other prosecution witness
did not turn up to the witness box. The
authorities have sought to justify the order
on the ground that consealment of fact was
deliberate one and since there was warning
given in the attestation form that he needed
to furnish correct information and if wrong
information had been given, it would be a
disqualification for a candidate and the
services of the petitioner were, therefore,
liable to be terminated, and thus, authority
competent has rightly passed the order.

12. Upon reading of the entire order
passed by the appellate authority, I find that
the question as to whether petitioner was
ever issued show cause notice has remained
unanswered.

13. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union
of India (supra), Supreme Court has observed
that even though there is right to terminate
the service of employee who is charged of
furnishing false information and so there can
be no compulsion for the appointing authority
to continue with such employee, but it was
observed that "McCarthyism" is antithesis to
the constitutional goal which of course is on
the bed-rock of reformative theory qua the
young offenders in suitable cases. After
appreciating many previous authorities of the
Court vide paragraph 38.4 to 38.11, the
Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines
thus:

38.4. In case there is suppression
or false information of involvement in a
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of
the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of the following recourse appropriate
to the case may be adopted : -

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature
in which conviction had been recorded,
such as shouting slogans at young age or
for a petty offence which if disclosed would
not have rendered an incumbent unfit for
post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact
or false information by condoning the
lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial
in
nature,
employer
may
cancel
candidature or terminate services of the
employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already
been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a
case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the
employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance
of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully
of a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to
multiple
pending
cases
such
false
information
by
itself
will
assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature
or terminating services as appointment of
a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was
pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may
have adverse impact and the appointing
authority
would
take
decision
after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is
confirmed in service, holding Departmental
enquiry would be necessary before passing
order of termination/removal or dismissal
on the ground of suppression or submitting
false information in verification form.

38.10.
For
determining
suppression
or
false
information
attestation/verification form has to be
specific, not vague. Only such information
which was required to be specifically
mentioned
has
to
be
disclosed.
If
information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of
fitness. However, in such cases action
cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held
guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him.

(emphasis added)

14. The above guidelines laid down in
clauses 38.4.2, 38.4.3, 38.7, 38.8 and 38.11
if all are read together, such discretion is
meant to be exercised in tune with
principles of natural justice. In order to
elicit truth of 'knowledge' directly from the
6 All. Jadhav Siddhodhan Ankush Vs. Union of India & Ors.
451
employee, given an opportunity, he would
be explaining his conduct and that will do
the needful.

15. Whenever a fact is to be
enquired into as to whether a candidate
had the knowledge of a criminal case/
proceeding lodged/instituted against him
at the time he filled up the application
form seeking selection and appointment
on post advertised, the knowledge factor
becomes important. In order to elicit this
factum of knowledge of criminal case, it
becomes imperative to hold atleast a
preliminary fact finding enquiry even
while an employee is still on probation,
and therefore, such an employee must be
put to a notice to explain his conduct in
the matter. This is necessary for the
simple reason that status of a criminal
case varies in nature, for instance there
could have been a complaint case of
which summons never stood served upon
such an alleged accused and he might not
be aware of such pending proceeding or
there could be a case where even first
information report was lodged but named
accused
was
never
arrested
or
interrogated and police might have
submitted a final closure report, or there
may be a criminal case where a named
person was not prime accused and police
might not have arrested him so as to
compel him to apply for bail and the
investigation might be still on and so on.
An employee, therefore, if put to notice,
will be able to submit his explanation as
to the knowledge. A cases where a
candidate has been innocent as far as
knowledge is concerned, it may be left
open for him to continue in service at the
discretion of the employer. The case may
also be such where a candidate has been
named in the first time only for once, to
wit, never before, nor subsequently and,
therefore,
employer
can
exercise
discretion to retain such a candidate in
service.

16. Thus, in my considered view if
concealment or alleged concealment for
want of knowledge of a candidate, in a
criminal case becomes a dominant factor
to reject his candidature and consequently
to terminate him from service, may be an
order
of
termination
is
an
order
simpliciter
termination,
department/
employer must conform to the principles
of natural justice in its action. I would
still hold that continuance of an employee
in service where he had knowledge or no
knowledge at the time of filing up a form
or signing the attestation form, it will be
well within the discretion of employer to
continue such an employee in service or
not.

17. In view of above, therefore, I
consider it appropriate for the authority to
give one opportunity to the petitioner to
explain his conduct and then to take action
in accordance with law.

18. The orders impugned dated
08.04.2015 passed by Commandant and
order
dated
3.12.2015
passed
by
Inspector
General
are
accordingly
quashed. The respondents are at liberty to
issue a show cause notice to the petitioner
within a month from today and in the
event any such show cause notice is
issued to the petitioner, petitioner shall
have to submit his reply within two
weeks
after
receipt
of
notice
and
thereafter authority shall be proceed to
pass final order in accordance with law in
the light of the observations made above
and in the light of case of Avtar Singh
(supra).
----------
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 6 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 13514 of 2022

M/s Modern Service Station ...Petitioner
Versus
I.O.C.L. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Ravi Anand
Agarwal, Ms. Shreya Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rakesh Kumar

Civil
Law-The
Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 14 & 226- Principles
of natural justice should not reflect as a
mere
empty
formality,
but
proper
opportunity of hearing deserves to be
given to the delinquent before taking
any action against him- the petitioner
has specifically taken his defence that
on 16.9.2020 the machines have been
opened up by the authorised service
engineer of OEM and he might have
been responsible for tampering with the
said machines. It was incumbent upon
the respondents to have addressed the
said issue duly considered the same and
recorded a finding in this regard. Not
adverting to the defence raised by the
petitioner, the prescribed authority as
well as the appellate authority have
abdicated the jurisdiction vested in them
and passed the impugned orders without
application of mind- Not dealing with
the issues raised by the petitioner as
defence,
is
also
violation
of
the
principles
of
natural
justice.
"Fair
hearing" and "opportunity of hearing"
during the enquiry proceedings would
have no meaning in case the enquiry
officer
does
not
consider
the
submissions raised in defence by the
person who is proceeded against. (Para
28 & 35)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Chaudhary Filing Point, Kazipur Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. passed in M.B Writ No.27043 of
2018

2. (M/s Kamla Kant Automobiles & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.) Writ C No.25127 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Rakesh Kumar for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the order dated
21.9.2020 passed by Area Manager Retail
Sales, Mathura - I, Indian Oil Corporation
Limited thereby stopping the sales from
their dispensing units until further orders.
The petitioner has also assailed the order
dated 5.10.2021 passed by Divisional
Retail Sales Head, Agra Division Office,
Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation
Limited
(Marketing
Division),
Agra
thereby
terminating
the
retail
outlet
dealership of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order of cancellation of his retail outlet
dealership had preferred an appeal which
has also been rejected by means of
impugned order dated 7.4.2022 passed by
Executive Director (Retail Sales -N &
E)/Appellate
Authority,
Indian
Oil
Corporation
Limited,
Head
Office,
Mumbai.

4. It has been submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as a dealer in