Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil s/o Narsingrao Khule, was appointed as a Sampling Assistant on 22.12.1994 by the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Akola. He was terminated on 20.07.1995, after about seven months of service, on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a criminal prosecution against him in the attestation form (column 11[a]) submitted at the time of joining. The petitioner had stated in the form that no such complaint was pending. The police later reported the pendency of the criminal case. The petitioner challenged his termination by filing ULPA Complaint No. 295/1995 before the Labour Court, Akola, under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on 14.01.2000. The petitioner then filed ULP Revision No. 11/2000 before the Industrial Court, Akola, under Section 44 of the same Act, which was also dismissed on 02.01.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner was acquitted on merits in the criminal case. The petitioner argued that the termination was stigmatic and violated principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or opportunity was given. He also contended that after entering service, the terms of the appointment order became irrelevant and Service Rules were determinative. The respondent argued that the petitioner had given a false undertaking by not disclosing the pending prosecution. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, and quashed the termination order. The court held that the termination was stigmatic and violated principles of natural justice. The court also noted the petitioner's acquittal on merits and clean police record.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Stigmatic Termination - Non-Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner was terminated for not disclosing a pending criminal prosecution in the attestation form. The court held that the termination was stigmatic and violated principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or opportunity was given. The subsequent acquittal on merits during the pendency of proceedings was also considered relevant. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Attestation Form - Non-Disclosure - Effect of Acquittal - The petitioner was acquitted on merits during the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court. The court noted that after acquittal, there were no other complaints against the petitioner and his police record was clean. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Appointment Order - Service Rules - Primacy - The court accepted the contention that after entering service, the terms and conditions of the appointment order become irrelevant and Service Rules are determinative. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner for non-disclosure of a pending criminal prosecution in the attestation form, without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, is valid and whether the subsequent acquittal on merits affects the termination.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 14.01.2000 and the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 02.01.2010, and quashed the termination order dated 20.07.1995. The court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages.
Law Points
- Termination based on non-disclosure of pending criminal case in attestation form without show cause notice is stigmatic and violates principles of natural justice
- Acquittal on merits during pendency of proceedings is a relevant factor
- Service Rules prevail over appointment order terms after entry into service
