Judicial Officer Suppresses Criminal Case In Application Form; Supreme Court Upholds Termination, Says Subsequent Closure Of Case Irrelevant

The Supreme Court recently upheld the termination of services of a judicial officer for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case at the time of making application. In the application form, there was a specific question if the applicant was an accused or a complainant in any criminal complaint. The candidate was named as an accused in an FIR. Also, she was a complainant in another complaint. However, the candidate gave the answer "No" to the query.Later, her appointment was cancelled by the Full Court of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court on its judicial side also affirmed the decision.Before the Supreme Court, the argument raised by the appellant was that a closure report was subsequently filed in the FIR which was pending against her. Therefore, it was argued that the suppression was not material. However, the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument, by noting at at the time of application, she made a dishonest statement. Hence, the subsequent closure of the case is irrelevant."The post which was applied by the appellant was a vey important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial officer", a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed.The candidate raised a further argument that her services could not have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution. However, the bench rejected this argument as the termination was not on the ground of any misconduct. "It was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India", the Court observed while dismissing the special leave petition.Case Title : Yogeeta Chandra vs The State of Uttar PradeshCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Vishnu, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prashad, A.A.G. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv. Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Adv.Judicial Service- Supreme Court upholds the termination of services of a judicial officer for not disclosing pendency of criminal case at the time of making application- Court notes that subsequent closure of the criminal case is immaterial when the candidate has made a dishonest suppression- The post which was applied by the appellant was a vey important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial office - Para 6Constitution of India - Article 311- Departmental enquiry not necessary to terminate the services of a judicial officer on the ground of suppression of criminal case at the time of making application- It is not a case of termination of services for misconduct- it was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India- Para 7Click here to read the judgment

Judicial Officer Suppresses Criminal Case In Application Form; Supreme Court Upholds Termination, Says Subsequent Closure Of Case Irrelevant

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags