N.L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved against the order dated June 20,1990 passed by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, the necessary facts may be given. The petitioner was appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent No. 1) on the post of Line Petrolman vide letter dated Sept. 14, 1989 (Annex-5). The terms and conditions are detailed out in the said appointment letter. For the purposes of this writ petition, conditions no. 2,3,10 and 15 are relevant which are reproduced as under: "2. You will be on probation for a period of six months from the date you report for duty, but the period of probation may be extended or reduced. If your work is found to be satisfactory during the probationary period your service will be continued. 3. Your service will not be regarded as confirmed unless a letter of confirmation to the effect is issued to you. 10. This appointment is subject to your furnishing a good conduct certificate from your previous employer/employers at the time of reporting for duty. 15. The Management reserves the right to terminate your appointment at its absolute discretion, after giving you one month's notice or on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice. Similarly, you shall be at liberty to resign from the services after giving one month's notice. The power to terminate your services will vest with the Managing Director, General Manager or with such other officer of the Corporation authorised by them or to whom the power in their behalf has been delegated by them either generally or by a special order." Prior to this appointment, the petitioner was working with Central Industrial Security Force (in short C.I.S.F.) and was posted at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai as Constable. Before joining his duties, the petitioner has submitted 'Attestation Form' with the respondent- Corporation which was duly filled-up and signed by him. The said Attestation Form has been t laced on the record as Annex.'X'. This Form contained the following warning : "(i) The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Corporation. (ii) If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form the detail should be communicated immediately to the Corporation failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information (iii) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Forms comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated." Then, part-A of the said Form is with regard to personal particulars, Column No.7(a) requires the details to be given by the employee if he had been under employment at any time. Besides other details, this column requires the details about the employer's name and address and reason for leaving the previous service. The petitioner has given the name of the employer as 'C.I.S.F.' and given the reason for leaving the previous employment as, Due to family circumstances', Column No.7(b) of the said Form runs as under: "If the previous employment was under the Government of India, a State Government,an undertaking owned or controlled by Govt. of India or State Govt., an autonomous body, a University, a Local Body; If you had left service on giving a month's notice under rule-5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or any similar corresponding rules ; were any disciplinary proceeding framed against you or had you been called upon to explain your conduct in any matter at the time you gave notice of termination of service or at a subsequent date, before your services actually terminated?" The reply has been filled-up by the petitioner to the said Column as 'No Please'. It appears that at the time of joining his service, the petitioner did not submit the Discharge Certificate issued by the earlier employer, namely, C.I.S.F. Authority. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit the Discharge Certificate from the previous employer vide letter dated Oct. 19,1989 (Annex.Z). As per the reply of the respondents, inspite of several reminders sent to him, the petitioner failed to submit the requisite Discharge Certificate and there- fore, the respondent made direct enquiry with the C.I.S.F. Authority and from them it was learnt that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of disciplinary action for the acts and misconduct. The respondents have further stated that after making the preliminary and proper enquiry the Management found that the petitioner had furnished false information and suppressed correct facts as such he was rendered unfit to be retained in the employment and consequently, the order dated June 20, 1990 was passed dispensing with his services. The respondents have filed the copies of the letters/reminders calling upon the petitioner to submit Discharge Certificate. The respondents have also filed the Discharge Certificate issued by the C.I.S.F. Authority which was obtained by them directly. From the said Discharge Certificates, it appears that he was removed from the services as he was found to have gone at religious place after consuming liquor. It further appears that on enquiry made with the C.I.S.F. Authority, the respondent-Corporation was intimated by it vide letter dated April 26,1990 the reasons for the discharge of the petitioner which have been given out as absence without permission, insubordination and entering the religious place after consuming liquor and creating breach of peace. It further appears that an enquiry was held and thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed.
(3.) In the aforesaid background of the facts, the grievance of the petitioner has to be examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted only one argument to the effect that after the expiry of six months probation period , the respondent Corporation did not extend the probation period, as such, the petitioner became a confirmed employee and his services could not have been terminated without charge sheeting and holding an enquiry against him. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Corporation Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1844 . On the other hand, Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents has made two-fold submissions, firstly, that as per the terms and conditions of the service contract (Annex-5), the services of the petitioner did not stand confirmed automatically after the expiry of initial probation period of six months. Secondly, that the petitioner has not only suppressed the relevant material facts but had also furnished false information in the Attestation Form and this fact alone was sufficient to terminate the service and in any case, the petitioner is not entitled for a discretionary relief in his favour on account of his conduct. Mr. Bhatt hal placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji and Another, AIR 1980 S.C. 965 , Commodore Commanding Southern Naval Area v. N. Rajan, AIR 1981 S.C. 965 and Rasiklal Vaghaji Bhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., AIR 1985 SC 504 .;