Slni?le Bench v. State of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4053 OF 2011 PETITIONER Churendra Kumar Dhruw RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus ^- (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. ^. ORDER (Passed on this 5th day of July, 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated

25.11.2009 {s/c 29.07.2010} (Annexure - P/2), by which, petitioner has been terminated from service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities, petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, participated in the selection process and after completing the due selection process by order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner has been appointed on the post pf Constable (General Duty). Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the service. However, all of a sudden by order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner has been terminated from the service on the ground that petitioner has been convicted by fine of Rs.100/- in crime No. 117/2009 at Police Station Sihawa, Dhamtari, under provisions of Section 13 of the Gambling Act and the said fact has flot been mentioned by the petitioner at the time of filling the attestation form. Thereafter, the petitioner made several requests including the representations before the respondent authorities and requested for condoning the mistake, which yielded no result. ^""•^. -rf'J ^y On the other hand, tearned counsel appearing for the State submits the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he has been convicted under the provisions of Section 13 of the GamblingAct; whereas, in column 12 (I) of the attestation form, the petitioner mentioned that "No" and he has not disclosed the facts properly. Thus, the petitioner has concealed the relevant facts and, as such, the petitioner was liable to be removed from service on account of concealment of the relevant facts, as required in the attestation form. It is trite law that the object of requiring information in various columns of the attestation form by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service (See: Commissjoner of Police, Delhi and another v. Dhaval Singh , Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and ofhers v. Ram Ratan Yadav2 and Secy., Dept. of Home Secy., A.P. and others v. B.Chinnam Naidu ).

The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar , observed that "It is true that in the application fonn the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34, IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. " The Supreme Court further observed that "a? event, It was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. "

Indisputably, the petitioner indulged into gambling on the day of Oiwali festival, as pleaded by the petitioner. Normally, on Diwali festival, most of the people indulge into gambling, as there is a