Case Title: Rohitashwa Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17491/2018
Decided on: 11.07.2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was working on the post of teacher and a criminal case was registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Jhunjhunu on 23.03.1994 and he was arrested on the same day and he remained in judicial custody for 49 days w.e.f. 23.03.1994 till 10.05.1994 and he concealed this fact from the department and submitted application seeking extraordinary leaves of these 49 days on the ground of illness of his daughter and family circumstances and the same was sanctioned. Thereafter, he faced trial for the offences under section 307/34, 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 75/1994 (37/1997) and he was convicted for the offences punished under Section 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment vide judgment dated 24.08.1998.
The petitioner submitted SB Criminal Appeal No. 639/1998 against the said judgment before this Court and the same was partly allowed on 15.05.2015 and his conviction was upheld by this Court and he was released on the sentence already undergone by him.
A charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon him and two charges were framed against him that he concealed the fact regarding his arrest in a criminal case and getting the 49 days of arrest period sanctioned as extraordinary leaves and received the half pay salary.
The petitioner submitted his explanation that due to lack of knowledge about the rules, this fact regarding his arrest was not disclosed and he had been acquitted in that criminal case by the High Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2015.
Judgement:
The petitioner has not only mislead the respondents about his involvement, arrest and conviction in a criminal case but also he has committed fraud with the respondents by saying that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. The petitioner does not deserve any sympathy by this Court. The respondents have not caused any illegality in taking the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner.
The present writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Analysis:
The question is about the credibility and the trustworthiness of the petitioner who has at every stage not only suppressed and concealed about his involvement, arrest and conviction in a criminal case but also he played a fraud by making a false declaration that he has been acquitted by this Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2015. Rather his conviction was upheld by this Court and the same has attained finality. If the correct facts would have disclosed, the respondents would not have continued the petitioner in service. Thus, the question is of trust. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee like the petitioner, who has mislead the department by playing fraud and did not disclose the correct facts and suppressed the material facts and therefore, he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee like the petitioner. Such an employee cannot claim his right to continue in service.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
