SINGHVI, J. - (1.) - Petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 31/3/1993 (Ex. 8) issued by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, respondent Board) terminating his service on the ground that as per the information of the State Police Department (CID Intelligence), the petitioner does not bear a good moral character and, he has been implicated in a criminal case under Sec. 498-A, IPC.
(2.) THE facts of the case show that after having passed degree of Engineering (Electrical) in 1990 from Engineering College, Kota, University of Rajasthan, the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) in the service of the Board in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent Board in the year 1991. THE petitioner was interviewed along with other eligible candidates by the selection committee. He was appointed as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical) by an order dated 23/11/1991 of the respondent Board. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. One of the conditions of the petitioner's appointment was that his character will be verified by the police and if the police finds the character to be doubtful or unsatisfactory, his appointment will be terminated without any notice and compensation. In pursuance of his appointment order dated 23/11/1991, the petitioner reported for duty and gave all his particulars to the authorities of the Board in the attestation form. After his selection but before issued of order of appointment, a first information report came to be lodged against the petitioner on 8/11/1991 alleging commission of an offence under Sec. 498-A, IPC. In the first information report lodged by one Shri Sudarshan Gupta, resident of Jodhpur he has alleged that his sister Neeta was married to Mahesh Gupta son of Murari Lal Gupta. It has been alleged that after the marriage, which took place in 1990, his sister is being harassed by her husband Mahesh Gupta, his brothers Dinesh Gupta, Akalesh Gupta, Harsh Gupta etc. Charge-sheet No. 20/1990 has been filed by the police with reference to the first information report No. 104/1991 registered at the Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. After about an year and four months of his appointment, the respondent Board has issued the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is violative of Arts. 14, 16* and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's plea is that mere registration of the first information report cannot be taken as the basis for coming to the conclusion that the character of the petitioner is blame-worthy or that his performance is unsatis factory. According to the petitioner, he has not been held guilty of any offence relating to moral turpitude and, in any case the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegation of harassment to his sister-in-law. Further plea of the petitioner is that without giving him any opportunity of hearing or action oriented notice, the respondent Board could not have acted only on the basis of the first information report lodged against the petitioner. The respondents have contested the writ petition. While admitting the facts relating to academic qualification of the petitioner, his selection by the Board and his appointment as Junior Engineer-I (Electrical), the respondents have pleaded that in the order of appointment itself, a condition was incorporated that his character will be verified from the police and in the event of an adverse report, his service is liable to be terminated without notice and without compensation. Moreover, in the form which the petitioner had filled, he has concealed material fact namely, pendency of a case against him for an offence under Sec. 498-A, IPC allegedly committed by him. Further plea of the respondent is that when the papers of the petitioner were sent for character verification from the police, the police authority informed the Chief Engineer (FH) Thermal Project, Kota vide his letter dated 31/7/1992 that the character of the petitioner has not been found to be good, because a case under Sec. 498-A, IPC has been registered against him. The respondents have stated that no notice was required to be given to the petitioner for termination of his service which was perfectly in accordance with condition No. 6 incorporated in the order of his appointment.
(3.) IN the rejoinder, the petitioner has contested the claim of the respondents that he has concealed any material information from the respondents, but he has pleaded that till the issue of the order of appointment challan has not been filed and, therefore, the case cannot be treated as pending against him. First argument of Shri Resham Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and, on that account it is liable to be quashed. Second submission made by Shri Bhargava is that the assumption on which the respondent Board has passed the order of termination against the petitioner is by itself erroreous. According to the learned counsel, mere registration of a case cannot be a ground for recording a finding that the petitioner's character is blame-worthy or that the same is unsatisfactory. Shri Bhargava argued that the conduct of a person cannot be treated as doubtful merely because of the registration of first information report. In substance, his argument is that only if a person is convicted of an offence, he can be treated to be a person of doubtful character. He lastly argued that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is abut concealment of material fact is wholly untenable. Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent Board, vehemently argued that when the character of the petitioner has been found to be doubtful, his retention in the service of the Board is unwarranted. Shri Rastogi has argued that termination of service of the petitioner has been brought about in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order of appointment and that the action of the respondent Board cannot be termed as arbitrary. Shri Rastogi submitted that the petitioner was under a duty to have disclosed before the Board that a case was pending against him and his failure to do so is by itself sufficient to disentitle him from any. relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ;