Conviction In Criminal Case: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Teacher For Suppression Of Facts

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a school teacher against his termination for suppression of the material fact regarding his conviction in a criminal case.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:

“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.”

The petitioner was working on the post of teacher and a criminal case for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sadar, Jhunjhunu on March 23, 1994. He was arrested on the same day and he remained in judicial custody for 49 days w.e.f. March 23, 1994.

It was alleged that the petitioner concealed the fact of his arrest and judicial custody from the department and submitted an application seeking extraordinary leave for the 49 days on the ground of illness of his daughter and family circumstances - the same was sanctioned.

Thereafter, the petitioner faced trial and was convicted for the offences punished under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo two years of imprisonment vide judgment dated August 24, 1998 passed by the trial court.

The petitioner filed appeal before the High Court and the same was partly allowed on May 15, 2015. His conviction was upheld by the high court but he was released on the sentence already undergone by him.

Meanwhile, a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon the petitioner 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 leave.

The petitioner submitted that due to lack of knowledge about the rules, the fact regarding his arrest was not disclosed and he had been acquitted in that criminal case by the High Court vide judgment dated May 15, 2015. Relying upon the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was dropped and the 49 days arrest period of the petitioner was sanctioned as extraordinary leaves vide order dated May 01, 2017.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement (VRS) and the same was allowed on July 03, 2017 and his VRS was accepted w.e.f. September 06, 2017. However, prior to the effect of the voluntary retirement on September 06, 2017, the VRS order dated July 03, 2017 was withdrawn on September 04, 2017 and the principal of school was directed not to relieve the petitioner.

A decision was taken on October 3, 2017 to terminate the services of the petitioner after looking into the misconduct about concealment of his conviction in the criminal case. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated July 07, 2018.

Feeling aggrieved by the two impugned orders dated October 03, 2017 and July 10, 2018, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of filing of the present writ petition. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules 1958 were dropped and his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondents, his services of the dead person cannot be terminated.

It was further submitted that without recalling the VRS acceptance order dated July 03, 2017, the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry under Rule 16 or 17 of the Rules of 1958.

The counsel argued that the misconduct and conviction of the petitioner was not related to official discharge of his duties, hence the impugned order of his termination is not legally sustainable in the eye of law.

The counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner misled the department by furnishing an incorrect information that he has been acquitted by the High Court in the said criminal case due to which the department dropped the departmental proceedings and accepted his voluntary retirement.

However, it was submitted that prior to his retirement, the material facts and misconduct of the petitioner came into the notice of the department and the VRS order dated July 03, 2017 was recalled and withdrawn on September 04, 2017, and thereafter invoking the power contained under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958, the decision was taken on October 03, 2017 to terminate the services of the petitioner.

The court said the petitioner has not only suppressed and concealed about his involvement, arrest and conviction in a criminal case but also he made a false declaration before the authorities that he has been acquitted in the criminal case by the High Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2015. "Such act of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct on his part. On the basis of such false information and misconduct of the petitioner the proceedings under Rule 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 were dropped against him and his application seeking voluntary retirement was accepted," it added.

The court said the act of the petitioner not only amounts to misrepresentation but also playing fraud with the department. It further observed that even holding the inquiry as contemplated under Rule 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1958, would be nothing but a futile exercise as it is undisputed that the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and his conviction was upheld and maintained by the High Court.

The court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttranchal 2013(9) SCC 363 and Jainendra Singh v. State of UP 2012 (8) SCC 748.

“Since the petitioner has not only misled 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,” said the court.

Case Title: Rohitashwa Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment