IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 25459 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
BHARATH KUMAR S/O. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. PARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYAKA B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, HINAKAL, MYSURU-570 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SECS LTD., HOLENARASIPURA-573 211.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, WORK AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION, HOLENARASIPURA-573 211. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 AND PASSED BY THE R-2 AND 3 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY) AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner who was appointed as a Junior Lineman was discharged from service on the ground that he had suppressed about the criminal case in which he was implicated. Petitioner’s departmental appeal against the said order having been negatived by the Appellate authority, he is knocking at the doors of writ court. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) admittedly, on the FIR dated 08.04.2013 the petitioner was inter alia charged for the offence of attempt to murder punishable u/s.307 IPC, although this Sessions Case No.166/2016 ended in acquittal on 01.09.2017; a copy of the acquittal order which apparently is not an honourable acquittal is at Annexure-L;
(b) the online application, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D which the petitioner had downloaded specifically mentions in Kannada as under:
“£Á£ÀÄ F CfðAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ºÉýPÉ/ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåªÁVgÀÄvÛÀzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸ÀÄvÛÀ£É ºÁUÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ CxÀªÁ ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖ®èªÉAzÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV®èªÉAzÀÄ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°AiÀiÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £ÀAvÀgÀªÁUÀ°Ã PÀAqÀÄ §AzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ PæÀªÀÄPÉÌ §zÀÝ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.”
Even a primary school student can understand the above text which required disclosure of antecedents. Thus the petitioner was expected to reveal about the criminal case which after investigation, charge having been framed went to full fledged trial; and culminated into acquittal;
(c) the contention of the petitioner that the Recruitment Notification dated 10.06.2015, at Annexure-C vide para 15 required a candidate to disclose only conviction in a criminal case is logically true, but does not come to his rescue inasmuch as the said notification contains general instructions to the candidates, whereas the special instructions are contained in the very application form which the petitioner had used for gaining entry to the public service; an argument to the contrary cannot be sustained without offending the common sense; and the language of the Application;
(d) the reliance of the petitioner on the decision in AVTAR SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, (2016) 8 SCC 471 again does not advance his case; at para 38.10, the Apex Court observed as under:
“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”.
The observation in the said paragraph would have come to petitioner’s aid if there was any doubt as to the requirement of disclosure of criminal antecedents; it needs to be mentioned what Lord Halsbury more than a century ago had said in the case of QUINN v LEATHEM (1901) A.C. 495, 506 that a case is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down, and not for all that which logically flows therefrom;
(e) the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner is a young man in his twenties and he has come clean after the full fledged trial in the criminal case and therefore his case should be viewed with leniency, is bit difficult to countenance, especially when the untainted job aspiring candidates galore in the employment market; had the criminal case ended in an order of honourable acquittal, perhaps the contention of the petitioner would have merited acceptance, which is not the case here.
In the above circumstances, no other point having been urged, the writ petition stands dismissed.
However, the discharge order or this judgment shall not come in the way of petitioner staking his claim for fresh employment.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/