Decided on January 31,2017

L Vinod, S/O Lakshmanan Pillai Appellant


P.V.Asha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is challenging Exts.P9 and P11 orders passed by the respondents by which his service stands terminated. As per Ext.P9 order, the bank informed him that on Police verification it was revealed that the petitioner was accused in a criminal case. Despite this, the petitioner did not reveal this in the attestation form, regarding his arrest in the criminal case. The bank invoked the instructions contained in para 2.3.3 (iv) of the Reference Book on Staff Matters Volume-2. According to which, the candidate when becomes due for confirmation subject to a satisfactory requirement of the Police authorities and in case the Police did not cancel the adverse, the employees service will be terminated in terms of paragraph 522 (1) of Sastri Award. In this case, the petitioner was appointed on 20.12.2012. According to the bank his appointment was subject to receipt of a satisfactory report of his character and antecedents from the Police authorities. Since the Police authorities informed the bank, that petitioner was arrested, the bank informed that his service was terminated immediately on issuance of notice Ext.P2 on 19.11.2014 by time of notice. Petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation before the Deputy General Manager pointing out that he has not suppressed anything deliberately and he was not aware of pendency of criminal case against him, at the time when he submitted the attestation form. According to him, he realised the pendency of the criminal case and a counter case, only when the notice was received. The notice was received from the bank proposing termination of his service. It is stated that, he was involved in Crime No.573/12 at Nenmara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the case was already quashed in Crl.M.C 1755/13 and in fact there was no physical arrest made in that case. According to the petitioner, these facts were revealed in his attestation form, without any deliberate intention since there was no formal arrest recorded against him. Even though, the petitioner submitted that he was an ex-service men with unblemished service record and having a family consisting of his grandmother, wife and School going children are totally dependent on his income for livelihood. The representation Ext.P10 did not revoke any response. In this writ petition also the petitioner submits that there was deliberately suppression in the attestation form as pointed out by the respondents. According to him, his selection and appointment was on the basis of his merit and considering the fact that he was an ex-service man and he had joined duty as Watch & Ward on 20.12.2012. Petitioner's contention is that, three persons had sustained bodily injuries on him in a marriage function on account of which the Crime No. 572/12 was registered against those three persons as per Ext.P5 and those persons as a counter blast registered a Crime No.573/12 against the petitioner, based on which Ext.P6 FIR was registered. Petitioner submits that even though complaint was amicably settled and both parties have filed Crl.M.C.4755/2013 and 4762/2013 and the final report was quashed in Exts.P7 and P8 judgments on 23.10.2013. In the above circumstances, petitioner seeks that the orders of termination is set aside.
(2.) The bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that there was a deliberate suppression in the attestation form of producing the attestation form as Annx.R2(a) in which in answer to the question whether the petitioner was arrested any time, he had returned "No". He also produced the FIR registered in Nenmara Police Station. Ext.R2(a) will show that in answer to the question No.12 of the attestation form, that is as to whether the petitioner has ever arrested or kept under detention or bound down/fined/convicted etc, the answer was "No". This attestation form submitted on 29.1.2013, whereas the registration of FIR as per Ext.R2(d) on 05.11.2014. Ex.R2(c) would reveal the case against the petitioner was revealed on 14.6.2012 and the same was charge-sheeted. It is stated that the proceedings for termination of service of petitioner was initiated on receipt of the report from the Police and it was in accordance with law.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in order to ascertain that the suppression of this recording of arrest shall not be a reason for termination of his services on considering the only source of his livelihood was being deprived of. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court itself the petitioner has not entitled to any relief, since it was only after the arrest that he had suppressed the material facts in the attestation form.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.