The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18085 of 2019 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Saroj Kumar Das …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Orissa & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Rabinarayan Mishra-II, Adv. Mr. S. Acharya, Adv. Mr. D. Dhal, Adv. Mr. B.N. Sarangi, Adv. Mr. Manas Kumar Swain, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. G. R. Mohapatra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-20.05.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.07.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2014 passed by the Opp. Party No.4/Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh removing him from service as well as the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela rejecting his appeal.
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 Page 1 of 11 2. Petitioner has also sought a directive from this Court compelling the Opposite Parties to reinstate him to his former position, along with all associated service and financial benefits. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief fact of the case in brevity remains:- (i) The Petitioner belongs to the unreserved S.E.B.C. The Petitioner, in pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2013 applied and participated in the recruitment. By the time of applying for the recruitment, the petitioner had the required driving license issued in his favour on 29.12.2009. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible and qualified to hold the post of Driver. The Physical test and the measurement of height, weight and chest was conducted on 25.7.2013. Since the petitioner qualified in the initial physical test, he was allowed to participate in the written test held in August, 2013. (ii) The petitioner was informed that the abovementioned recruitment was subject matter of litigation for which results were not declared immediately. The result was published on 19/20th of November, 2013. The list of selected candidates kept alphabetically was affixed in the Notice Board of the P.M.T. Buxibazar, Cuttack. The Select list contained the names of the successful candidates including the petitioner and reflected their place of posting. Petitioner’s Headquarter was fixed to Commandant, Sambalpur and was posted to 1st SSBN (Special Security Battalion), Sundargarh. The petitioner, however, has not obtained the copy of the select list since it was affixed in the Notice Board as mentioned above. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 Page 2 of 11 (iii) The petitioner, on being selected, reported himself before the Headquarter i.e. the Commandant, Sambalpur and was directed to report to the Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh in the Reserve Office. Accordingly, the petitioner reported himself for duty on 21.11.2013 at the Reserve Office. But, the joining letter was accepted only on 29.11.2013 after due verification of the documents. The joining letter of the petitioner was taken by the Reserve Inspector on 29.11.2013 in the presence of the Opposite Party No.4 and once again the height, weight and chest measurements were taken. It was only, thereafter, the candidates including the petitioner were allowed to join. The petitioner could not keep duplicates of the appointment order and the joining letter and till date these documents have not been returned to the petitioner. (iv) Immediately after completion of the measurements of height, weight and chest as mentioned above, the candidates including the petitioner were directed to fill up and sign one declaration form. The form was filled up and signed by the candidates including the petitioner as dictated by the Officer present there. The petitioner understood that the declaration pertained to the absence of any criminal convictions against the candidate. Consequently, the petitioner completed and signed the declaration form and subsequently commenced his duties. (v) While the petitioner was discharging his duties, the Opp. Party No.4 passed the order dated 14.06.2014 removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect for concealment of previous instances of involvement in criminal cases. This order was communicated and Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 served on the petitioner vide letter No.1296, dated 15.06.2014 along with Memo No.13166, dated 24.06.2014. (vi) Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1707 of 2019 which was disposed of on 18.05.2019 with a direction to the DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela to dispose of the claim of the Petitioner on its own merit as per Rules within a period of two months. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela along with a copy of that order. The DIG of Police, WR, Rourkela vide order dated 29.07.2019 rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner. (vii) Challenging the said order of removal dated 14.06.2014 and appellate order dated 29.07.2019, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) It has already been explained above regarding the circumstances and the manner in which the petitioner had filled up the declaration Form and joined his duty. The impugned order shows that Gondia P.S. Case No.129 was registered on 22.09.2013 during which period the petitioner was facing the recruitment process. Therefore, he had no occasion to know about the same. Further, Gondia P.S. Case No.204 dated 20.11.2008 had ended in acquittal on 29.08.2012, by that time the recruitment had not started. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 Page 4 of 11 (ii) Since the petitioner did not have the vital documents such as the appointment order and the joining report, he requested the Reserve Inspector for return the same. But, the same was bluntly turned down. The petitioner, therefore, vide his application dated 30.06.2014 under the R.T.I. Act sought for the documents and necessary information relating to the last portion of the order under Annexure-1. But, there is no response to his application dated 30.06.2014. Therefore, it is clear that the Opposite Parties/Authorities have determined to remove the petitioner from service by hook or crook. (iii) The petitioner is the sole source of livelihood of the entire family and with much difficulties and tremendous dedication and sincerity, he was successful in the recruitment on merit. The reason recorded by the Opposite Party No.4 in the impugned order that “Besides, another one case vide Gondia P.S case No.129 dated 22.09.2013 under Sections 341/ 342/ 294/ 323/ 366/ 376/ 509/ 34 of the IPC has also been registered against him. The case is under investigation. On the other hand as ascertained from local inquiry and opined by IIC, Gondia P.S that, Asst. Driver-05, Saroj Kumar Das is not a man of good moral character in the locality”/ is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law. It is not understood as to how the petitioner can be held responsible for any complaint lodged against him unless notice thereof is communicated to the petitioner. In the instant case, as is clear that the petitioner had neither any knowledge nor had the intimation of such complaint. Hence, he could not have disclosed about pendency of such a complaint. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 Page 5 of 11 (iv) It is also submitted that the order of removal was passed solely based on non-disclosure by the Petitioner at Clauses-7 and 8 of the verification roll about pendency of any criminal case. It is contended that Gondia P.S. Case No.204 dated 20.11.2008 had ended in acquittal on 29.08.2012. Further, Gondia P.S. Case No.129 was registered on 22.09.2013 during which period the petitioner was facing the recruitment process. Therefore, he had no occasion to know about the same. Moreover, Gondia P.S. Case No.129 of 2013 was under investigation. Therefore, opinion given by the I.I.C./ Gondia P.S. that “Asst. Driver-05, Saroj Kumar Das is not a man of good moral character in the locality” and based on which the removal order passed by the Opposite Party No.4 is not sustainable in law. The reporting officer ought to have applied his mind while giving report about the character of a person. The case at hand is an example, where the petitioner has lost his livelihood because of such erroneous reporting. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES/STATE : 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/State earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:- (i) The petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Driver and the Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh issued Battalion Order bearing B.O. No.02 dated 29.11.2013 fixing the scale of pay of the petitioner. However, it was further stipulated that the appointment letter is subjected to satisfactory verification of his antecedent character and certificate/documents. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 Page 6 of 11 (ii) After his joining, the petitioner was asked to fill up the verification Roll on 5.12.2013 which is usually followed as per Rule-673 of Police Manual. The petitioner accordingly submitted the verification Roll on his own and at Clause-7 and 8 of the Roll, the petitioner had written ‘NO’ in reply to queries raised therein about his involvement in any criminal case. The petitioner had concealed the fact in Clause-7 and 8 of Verification Roll pertaining to criminal cases initiated against him, which subsequently surfaced. (iii) The petitioner was terminated from service due to his involvement in two criminal cases vide (1) Gondia P.S. Case No.204 dated 20.11.2008, under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C. and (2) Gondia P.S. Case No.129 dated 22.09.2013, under Sections 341/342/294/323/366/379/506/34 of the I.P.C. of Dhenkanal district. Therefore, no error has been committed by the Opposite Party No.4 in terminating the Petitioner from service. (iv) The criminal antecedent of the petitioner was dubious and he was man of low moral character and is not a man of good reputation. As per provision of PMR 673 (c), he was removed from service. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.4 has not violated the principles of natural justice (v) Gondia P.S. Case No.129 of 2013 was lodged against the petitioner on 22.09.2013 and he submitted the Verification Roll on 05.12.2013 after three months of registration of criminal case against him. Hence, it is construed that the petitioner was very much aware about institution of the said criminal case against him. (vi) Police Manual Rules is very clear that if the statements/ information provided by the candidate are found to be false, he shall be removed Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2024 14:59:11 from the force. Hence, the petitioner should have disclosed everything about his involvement in any criminal case at the time of filing of the same. The same not only amount to gross misconduct by the petitioner but also it amounts to fraud. (vii) If any person suppresses about pendency of criminal case against him in his verification roll, he is not suitable for a Government job particularly in a disciplined force like police. (viii) He relied on a judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abhijeet Singh Power1 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that “if any person suppress about the pendency of criminal case in his verification form he is not suitable for the Government job particularly discipline force like police”. (ix) Further, in Jatin Kumar Panjia v. State of Orissa:2 this Court considering a similar issue and relying upon various judgment of the Apex Court held that “if an employee give false declaration in the declaration roll then there is no illegality in removing the employee from in a discipline force”. (x) In State of Orissa and others v. Gobinda Behera,3 the Apex Court has held that “the respondent/opp. party was seeking employment in State Police Service. His duties were of responsible character bearing intrinsically of law and order and with consequences personnel liberty of citizens, hence, expectations that he would be truthful in disclosure of information sought about antecedent, held was justified for assessment of his personality and