1 2026:CGHC:8343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9179 of 2022 1 - Rajkumar S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tahsil Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The General Manager / Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dhelwadih- Singhali-Bagdewa Sub Area, Post Office- Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, along with Mr. Ankit Bhoi, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 16/02/2026 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction and quash/set-aside the order dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3. 2 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointment to the post of General Mazdoor Category- 1 Trainee in lieu of land acquired for the Saraipali Project under SECL. He submits that, in order to obtain the appointment, the petitioner fulfilled the requisite attestation form. The petitioner, belonging to a weaker section of society, lost his land during the acquisition process and while filling out the attestation form, certain questions forming part of the said attestation form were answered in the negative. The petitioner was not aware of the legal consequences of failing to disclose the information in its proper perspective. He further submits that the petitioner was previously prosecuted for offences under Sections 380 & 457 of IPC in the year 2008. However, vide judgment dated 29.09.2009, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali District Koriya in Criminal Case No. 188/ 2009 acquitted the petitioner. He submits that since the acquittal took place in the year 2009 and the attestation form was filled in the year 2018, the petitioner under a bona fide misconception, failed to provide an accurate answer to the questionnaire therein. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was acquitted of all charges involving moral turpitude, and has never been prosecuted or convicted of any other crime and thereafter the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Mazdoor (category-1), a low-paid post which constitutes his sole source of income. Having lost his land, the petitioner is entirely dependent on the said appointment for his livelihood. However, by way of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 29.10.2020, he has been removed from service. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. Furthermore, it is submitted that prior to passing the impugned order, the respondents failed to conduct a proper assessment as to whether the petitioner’s continued service would prejudice the status of the 3 respondents and his continuation of service would not in no way hamper the working of the organization. Thus he placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. He submits that the petitioner may be given one opportunity and the respondents may be directed to reconsider his case in light of the aforementioned factual scenario. 3. Opposing these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the petitioner’s land was acquired under the Saraipali project and he was appointed as a General Majdoor Category-1 in lieu of said acquisition. While filling up the attestation form, questionnaires were filled by the petitioner in negative which also includes that whether the petitioner had even been arrested, prosecuted, kept in detention or bound down. The petitioner answered ‘No’ to all these queries. Thus, from the very beginning despite the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted, he was fully aware that he has been prosecuted and arrested. The petitioner has suppressed material facts to obtain the appointment, and a departmental enquiry was also conducted against him. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The law is no longer res integra in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), wherein in Para 38, parameters have been laid down as to when and how the suppression of material fact may result in the drastic punishment of termination of employee from service. In the case of Satish Chand Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2023) 7 SCC 536 it was held that in every case, the punishment of termination from service is not a sine qua non. In deserving cases, the employer can assess the suitability of the candidate and the effect of non-disclosure of any conviction, acquittal or prosecution by the aspiring candidates. In the case in hand, the appointment of the petitioner on account of acquisition of his land for Saraipali project of respondents. On one hand, the petitioner has lost his land and on other hand lost his job and livelihood. In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make a representation to the respondents within a period of 60 days 4 from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the same shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). It is also made clear that if the respondents find that the suppression of the previous criminal case by the petitioner does not hamper the service condition or otherwise, they may consider his case for reinstatement. 6. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. The decision may be taken within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also made that while deciding the representation of the petitioner, Annexure P-1 shall not be treated as a bar for taking a fresh decision on the reinstatement of the petitioner. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.25 12:59:38 +0530