2025:CGHC:22594 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6056 of 2021 Reserved on : 21.03.2025 Delivered on : 09.06.2025 Bhagwani Ram Bhatpahri S/o Late Shri Laduram Bhatpahri Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Jounda Post- Kond, Thana-Gobra Nawapara Abhanpur, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest Mantralaya Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Udanti, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Basant Kaiwart, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition assailed order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner regarding his termination, has been rejected. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are :- BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.06.09 16:43:47 +0530 (A) The petitioner was working as daily wages employee since 1985 and his services were regularized on the post of Assistant Grade-III on 07.08.2006. It is case of the petitioner that he was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and was acquitted from the said charges vide order dated 31.01.1991 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Session Case No. 197/88 granting benefits of doubt. (B) The petitioner during the pendency of the criminal case, was also working as daily wages employee since 1985 and at the time of regularization of his service, the respondents/State have asked the petitioner to submit attestation form in which paragraph 12, it has been required to fill up whether the candidate has been arrested or prosecuted or detained in jail or bound has been taken from him. It has also asked whether any penalty has been imposed or he has been convicted from any court of law. It has also been asked whether he has been debarred by Public Service Commission or he has been restrained from appearing in any examination by any university/institution, which has replied by him as ‘No’ . (C) It has also been directed by the respondent that to clarify whether any case is pending against him by Court/University or educational institution. He was also directed to clarify the information as sought in paragraph 12(A) of the Attestation Form and if any matter is pending at the time of submission of form before any Court/University or educational institution then the nature of the case should have been informed. The petitioner has given his reply “No” . This column further provides that any information is incorrect found then services of the petitioner deserves to be terminated. (D) Vide order dated 05.06.2010 passed by respondent No.3, the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect without any prior notice or giving any opportunity of hearing stating that the petitioner failed to mention about the court cases against him with respect to Criminal Case No. 19/88 in column 12(A) of the attestation form Appendix-1, prescribed for the government servant. Being aggrieved with the order dated 05.06.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 on 24.06.2010 and the same was rejected vide order dated 19.07.2010 withing assigning any reason. Being aggrieved with the order dated 05.06.2010 passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WP(S) No. 4094 of 2010 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2021 remitting back the matter to the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 2 with a direction to consider and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with Rule 27(2) of Rules of 1966 after hearing the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 21.09.2021 has rejected the same. Hence, this petition assailing the order dated 05.06.20 (Annexure P/2) and the appellate order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P/1). 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their return mainly contending that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager and was working in the respondent's department prior to the 31.12.1988, thereafter his services were regularized on the post of "Assistant Grade-III" vide order dated 07.08.2006 (Annexure P/3) as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the regularization order. It is further contended that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the information regarding criminal case required in Clause 12(A) of the Attestation Form, as such according to the clause enumerated in the Attestation Form, if any information is found incorrect, services of the petitioner can be terminated by the respondent as the information submitted by the petitioner in column No. 12, is found incorrect, the respondent exercising its power given in the Attestation Form has rightly passed the impugned order on 05.06.2010. The appellate authority has considered the entire material on record and passed well reasoned order on 21.09.2021 as such, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society and he has already working since 1985 and has been regularized in the year 2006 and after regularization of the service, has also worked for more than 4 years, as such, at the fag end of career, dismissal of the services, is so harsh. They would further submit that the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in criminal case, as such merely non-disclosure of the information regarding criminal case, is not so fatal for which his services can be terminated. Thus, they would pray for quashing of the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate the submission would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 3 SCC 169], Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed & others [Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019 (decided on 21.08.2019)] judgment passed by this Court in case of Bhagwat Ram Sahu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now C.G.) & others [WPS No. 1519 of 2005 (decided on 06.05.2010)], Dainy Singh Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [WPS No. 6424 of 2010 (decided on 04.10.2016)]. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has concealed the material information about his antecedents and involvement in the criminal case which is of serious in nature as such, termination from service as per the power conferred the appointing authority, is legal, justify and does not call for interference by this Court. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited And Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya [Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021 (decided on 17.09.2021)] & Reshamlal V. Union of India [WPS No. 86 of 2016 (decided on 20.01.2022)]. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. From perusal of documents and pleadings of the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is :- “Whether the respondents were justified in terminating the services of the petitioner on account of concealment of material information in the Attestation Form and if not, what relief can be granted to the petitioner?” 8. From the records, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wager employee with the respondents since 1985 and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur in criminal case for commission of offence under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid charges on 31.01.1991 by granting benefit of doubt. Thereafter, services of the petitioner was regularized on 07.08.2006. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not mentioned about is criminal antecedents in column No. 12(A) of the Attestation Form accordingly, his services were terminated on 05.07.2010. The law with regard to concealment of information in Attestation Form in Column No. 12 (A) is subject matter of examination by Hon’ble the Supreme Court from very inception and Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has summarized the power to be exercised by the employer and laid down the certain parameter when the extreme action of termination or when some lenient view can be taken by the employer. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 has summarized the principle and has held as under:- “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Page 7 of 11 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : - 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. Page 8 of 11 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. 39. We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.” 9. The said judgment has again considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana [2023 INSC 754] has held in paragraphs 14 & 15 as under:- “14. As per the said case, para 38.10 comes to the aid of the respondent, because in this case, the information sought in verification roll was not specific and vague in nature. The respondent has specifically disclosed the information which was required to be furnished. Considering the subsequent development of the clean acquittal of respondent for the petty offences, it requires consideration objectively by the authority, about the question of fitness, ignoring the issue of supressing the information. Even in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. The High Court could not have directed the issuance of the letter of appointment as per para 38.5 of the case of Avtar Singh (supra). In our view, the issuance of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said discretion. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the High Court. 15. In view of the discussion made herein above, we confirm the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court on the issue of suppression of material information. As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. Needless to observe that the authorities shall take note of the discussion made herein above and shall exercise their discretion judiciously in assessing the suitability and antecedents of the prospective candidate. It is made further clear that in the event of issuance of the order of appointment, the respondent would only be entitled to notional benefits including continuity in service and pay fixation at par with other similarly situated persons and he would not be entitled for salary and back wages till the date of his appointment.” 10. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that though the petitioner was charged for abduction of minor girl and commission of rape under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC which are serious in nature but the victim was not examined before the trial Court as she was expired during trial and the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the petitioner has recorded its finding that no one has seen the petitioner abducting the victim and accordingly, acquitted the petitioner by granting benefit of doubt. 11. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wager in the year 1995 and his services were regularized in the year 2006 after completion of 21 years of services and he worked as Assistant Grade- III for about 4 years, I am of the view that the order of termination dated 05.06.2010 (Annexure P/2) and the appellate order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 deserve to be quashed as it is harsh and disproportionate to the said act and omission done by the petitioner, accordingly, they are quashed. As such, the Point emerged for determination of this Court, is answered partly in favour of the petitioner and partly against the petitioner. 12. Learned Senior Advocates for the petitioner have submitted that the termination is illegal, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full backwages. This submission deserves to be rejected as the petitioner in the writ petition nowhere stated that from the date of termination, he was remained unemployed and despite efforts made by him, no work was provided to him. In view of the well settled legal position by Hon’ble the Supreme Court regarding grant of backwages as it is for the employee to plea and prove regarding his unemployment during termination and once the employee has proved about his unemployment the burden shifts upon the employer. 13. The judgment cited by learned Advocates for the petitioner so far as grant of backwages is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be reinstated without back-wages with notional seniority as the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the writ petition that from the date of termination, he remained unemployed, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & others [(2022) 3 SCC 683], wherein it has been held at paragraph 12 as under:- “12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal / malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court.” 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed reinstating the petitioner on his formal post i.e. Assistant Grade-III with continuity of service but without back-wages. It is made clear that from the date of termination till reinstatement by the respondents, the entire service will be counted for the purpose of all service benefit except backwages and his pay will be fixed notionally for the intervening period. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika