Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by the employee challenging the order of termination from service, on ground of non-disclosure of the registration of offence against him under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (the Gambling Act) the Division Bench of M.S. Jawalkar and Pravin S. Patil*, JJ., quashed and set aside the said order of termination. The Court held that the termination could not be done arbitrarily. The employer should have considered all the relevant facts and circumstances, while taking the decision. Thus, the Court opined an employee could not be terminated merely by the stroke of pen. Additionally, the Court held that an offence for which the petitioner was just fined Rs. 250, was a trivial offence, thus, his removal from service for this non-disclosure was a harsh punishment.
Background
The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by Respondent 3-General Manager (GM) Ordinance Factory, Chanda against the post of Multi-Tasking Staff/Labourer. At the time of appointment, an affidavit was sworn by the petitioner stating that no criminal proceedings were pending against him nor he had been convicted by any competent court of law for any offence. On the basis of this affidavit, the petitioner joined the services in Ordinance Factory, Chanda. During his tenure of service, GM issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner suppressed information regarding the offence registered against him at police station and called explanation as to why his services should not be terminated on account of suppression of facts in attestation form.
The document obtained from the office of Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur was annexed with the said show cause notice, which stated that he was punished under Section 12 of the Gambling Act and was imposed the punishment Till Rise of Court and fine of Rs.250.
In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner stated that offence under the provisions of the Gambling Act was registered against him, but the same was settled before the Judicial Magistrate and fine of Rs.250 was imposed upon him. Thus, he requested to not be terminated on an offence which was of a trivial nature, but the GM did not consider his response and terminated him from the service with immediate effect.
The petitioner therefore filed an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur but the appeal got dismissed and it was held that the offence registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Gambling Act was a serious offence and as the same was not disclosed while tendering his attestation form as well as affidavit to the GM. Hence, the decision to terminate the services of petitioner was justified.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the registration of offence under the Gambling Act and the punishment awarded for the same was not disputed. Further, it was also admitted by the petitioner that he did not disclose his offence in the affidavit given by him in order to be appointed for the service.
The Court stated that the question for consideration was “whether on the count of non-disclosing the fact of registration of offence, termination order issued by the GM was justified?”.
It was pointed out by the Court, that the punishment was inflicted eight years before the date of appointment. Furthermore, the petitioner was a Class-IV employee, who was appointed on compassionate grounds by the department and his whole family was dependent on him. Therefore, the Court stated that the GM needed to take into consideration all these relevant facts and circumstances, keeping in view the objective criteria, while taking appropriate decision. Mere suppression did not mean that employer could arbitrarily terminate the services of employee.
Thus, the Court opined that punishment till rise of Court and fine of Rs 250 for the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Gambling Act, was neither serious nor heinous offence and the same fell in the category of trivial offence. It was emphasised by the Court that an employee could not be terminated automatically from service just by a stroke of pen.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set-aside the termination order passed against the petitioner and held that punishment of removal from service was a very harsh punishment for non-disclosure of registration of an offence under Gambling Act, in the attestation form. Thus, the Court held that it was a right case to exercise their discretion to meet the ends of justice. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his former post as Multi-Tasking Staff/Labourer without back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, but with continuity of service and consequential benefits of service
[Nitin Sadashiv Khapne v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2969, decided on: 21-8-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Pravin S. Patil
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner- B. Lahiri, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- C.J. Dhumane, Advocate
