The employer is required to take a decision while considering various aspects before arriving at a conclusion that the employee was unfit for the post has been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through a single bench led by HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY S. AGARWAL in the case of Chandrika Prasad Patel v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (Writ Petition Case No. 3757 of 2013).
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his brothers, namely, Omprakash Patel and Mani Prakash Patel jointly owned a land at village Pandripani, which was acquired by the respondents Electricity Company under the Rehabilitation Policy of the Government for laying pipeline for 2 x 250 MW Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Thermal Power Station, Korba. It is pleaded that as per the said Rehabilitation Policy, the family members of owners of the land, whose land was acquired for the public purpose, are entitled for employment in the Industry and in view of the acquisition of the petitioner’s land, an appointment order dated 31.07.2012 was issued appointing the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III.
The petitioner in accordance with appointment order also submitted the Attestation Form, Declaration Form, affidavit required for Character Verification, Medical Certificate and other necessary documents disclosing the facts regarding pendency of criminal case against him, wherein it was informed by the petitioner specifically that in the year 2000, he was convicted for the crime registered against him by the police station Balco for commission of offence and against the order of conviction, Criminal Appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. But the respondent authorities cancelled the order of appointed on the grounds of misstatement.
The court stated that all the material facts have been disclosed by the petitioner therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner in order to get an employment illegally has suppressed any materials to the concerned authorities. The court noted that the purpose of seeking the information is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess the suitability for his appointment in a particular post, but such assessment was not made by the respondent authorities before cancellation of petitioner’s appointment. The same has been held in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India and others and Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others.
In view of this, the court directed to reinstate the petitioner as Office Assistant Grade-III forthwith along with the consequential benefits, if any, as provided under the rules.
Judgement Reviewed by- Akshat Jaithlia
