Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE14H DAY OF SEPTEMBER201523RD BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19697 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ANAND JOHN AGED28YEARS MALIAKKAL HOUSE, N. CHALAKKUDY, CHALAKKUDY PO THRISSUR68030 BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SURAJ SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- ZONAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE OF BANK OF INDIA KERALA ZONE, K.K.ROAD, KALOOR TOWERS COCHIN68201 R1 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SC, BANK OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1409-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19697 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW DATED1908.2014 EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF OFFER LETTER DATED2911.2014 EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF REVOCATION LETTER DATED0702.2015 EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDY IN CC.NO.4871/2013 EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDY IN CCNO.2681/2013 EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF POLICE CERIFICATION CERTIFICATE DTD. 20.04.2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R(A) TRUE COPY OF the APPLICATION DT2308.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.R(B): TRUE COPYOF THE AFFIDAVIT DT512.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.R(C): TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE VERIFICATION REPORT DT2512.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 19697 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the refusal of the respondent Bank, to appoint him despite his having been found qualified for such appointment. The petitioner had been working as a temporary hand in the respondent Bank as a Sepoy. The petitioner applied under a notification for regular appointment. The petitioner had been called for the interview as per Ext.P1. An offer letter was issued at Ext.P2. Subsequently on police verification the petitioner was found to have been involved in two offences one punishable under Section 118 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 r/w section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and another under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act. The convictions are evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5. On the basis of the Police verification WPC.No.19697/2015 :
2. : report, the Bank refused to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sepoy by Ext.P3 which is impugned herein.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Bank is bad insofar as the convictions were entered subsequent to the application of the petitioner which is produced by the Bank as Annexure R1(a). The petitioner also relies on Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana and another (1996(4) SCC17 which found that a conviction under Section 294 IPC per se would not establish moral turpitude unless the tests laid down in the policy decisions are satisfied. On such finding the termination of service effected on the employee therein was set aside.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would rely on State of Kerala and another v. Hamil Raphael (2014 (3) KLT546 in which the finding of the learned Single Judge that the nondisclosure of involvement in a crime would not be fatal insofar as on appointment; was set aside by a Division Bench finding to the contrary. WPC.No.19697/2015 :
3. :
4. In the present case, it is to be noticed that it is not a question of termination and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited herein above would not be applicable. That was a case in which an employee when continued in ad-hoc employment was involved in a case charged under Section 294 IPC. On the ground of alleged moral turpitude, arising from the said conviction, his regularization was declined and he was terminated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the conviction, entered on recording a plea of guilt, and the punishment imposed of Rs20/- as fine. Section 295, dealing with singing, reciting or uttering obscenity in public causing annoyance to others was held to cast no aspersion of moral turpitude, in the changing perspectives of the concept of morality. The conviction was found to be on a plea of guilt, which resulted in only a meagre punishment of fine of Rs.20/-.
5. The petitioner herein cannot, on the basis of an earlier temporary employment, claim that the refusal to appoint him would result in a termination of his earlier services. WPC.No.19697/2015 :
4. : Admittedly, the petitioner had applied under a notification and had filed an application, in which the undertaking given was that the petitioner was not convicted in any offences. The same was correct too, at that point of time. Subsequent to Ext.RA the petitioner having been selected, had given an undertaking at Ext.RB wherein it was stated that he has no criminal antecedents and that if an adverse report comes, on verification, the petitioner's appointment would be liable to be terminated.
6. The petitioner in fact, was never appointed and the conviction under Ext.P4 & Ext.P5 happened when proceedings were underway for the appointment of the petitioner. However, the offence was committed previous to the application and the conviction in any event was earlier to the undertaking given. In the affidavit filed as on 05.12.2014 after the conviction were entered, as is seen at Exts.P4 and P5; both the offences relating to drunken behavior; one in public and another driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The question whether the offence WPC.No.19697/2015 :
5. : alleged or the conviction entered, on a plea of guilt, is secondary and what assumes significance is that the petitioner failed to disclose the same and filed a false undertaking. The Division Bench in Hamil Raphael (supra) relied on a Supreme Court decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003 (3) SCC437 which held that suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of an aspirant for public employment. The nature of the case or the outcome of the case, is immaterial, was the finding. In such circumstance, the action of the bank in refusing appointment cannot be found fault with. The nature of the offence, herein, is of significance since it related to drunken behaviour in public, in quick succession. Writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge