Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jayesh Pethabhai Chauhan, was appointed as a Lok Rakshak (unarmed) by the respondent authorities. During the verification of his antecedents, it was found that a criminal case was pending against him under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 427, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The petitioner had not disclosed this pending case in the attestation form. Consequently, the respondent no. 4 terminated his services vide order dated 28.02.2019. The petitioner challenged this termination by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Vicky Mehta, and the learned AGP, Mr. Mitul Gautam, for the respondent-State. The court noted that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case on 31.08.2022, as the complainant turned hostile. The court observed that the non-disclosure was not willful and that the petitioner had no role in the criminal case. The court held that the termination was unsustainable and directed the respondent no. 4 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The court also directed that the petitioner be considered for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) if he is otherwise eligible.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Non-disclosure of Criminal Case - Attestation Form - The petitioner was terminated from the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) for not disclosing a pending criminal case in the attestation form. The court held that since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and the non-disclosure was not willful, the termination was unsustainable. The court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits. (Paras 1-7) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Effect on Service - The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case under Section 302 IPC and other sections. The court noted that the acquittal was based on the complainant turning hostile, and the petitioner had no role in the case. The court held that the acquittal should be considered favorably for the petitioner's service. (Paras 4-6) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the termination order and direct reinstatement, as the termination was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case in the attestation form is justified, especially when the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said case.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the termination order dated 28.02.2019, and directed the respondent no. 4 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The court also directed that the petitioner be considered for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) if he is otherwise eligible.
Law Points
- Termination based on non-disclosure of criminal case
- Attestation form
- Lok Rakshak
- Acquittal
- Willful suppression
- Proportionality
