'Removal From Service For Non-Disclosure Of Involvement In Trivial Offence Is A Harsh Punishment': Bombay High Court Sets Aside Termination

The Bombay High Court has held that non-disclosure of a past conviction for a trivial offence cannot, by itself, justify termination of a Class-IV employee appointed on compassionate grounds. The Court observed that authorities are required to consider the nature of the offence, the duties of the post, and the family circumstances of the employee before inflicting the extreme penalty of removal from service.

A division bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil and Justice Smt. M. S. Jawalkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Nitin Sadashiv Khapne, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had upheld his termination from the Ordnance Factory. The petitioner had been appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff (Labourer) on compassionate grounds. His services were terminated on the ground that he failed to disclose a prior conviction under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, for which he had been punished in 2012 with “till rising of the court” and a fine of Rs. 250.

The Court noted that an employee is not to be terminated automatically from service just by a stroke of a pen. It observed:

“The employer should take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents, and keeping in view the objective criteria, while taking an appropriate decision. Merely suppression does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily terminate the services of an employee.”

The Bench observed that the offence was not heinous or morally depraved, and that it had been committed long before his appointment. In such circumstances, removal from service would amount to a disproportionately harsh punishment, particularly given that he was employed on compassionate grounds and his family's livelihood depended on his job.

“… punishment was inflicted long back, eight years before the date of appointment. As such, according to settled principles of law, it was necessary for Respondent No.3 to give thoughtful consideration to all these material facts. But the same is not reflected from the impugned order,” the Court observed.

The Court held that though the Petitioner has not disclosed registration of the offence under the provisions of the Gambling Act against him in his attestation form, his removal from service would be a harsh punishment, and therefore, it is a fit case for the exercise of discretion to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the order of the CAT as well as the termination order issued by the Ordnance Factory. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner to his post as Multi-Tasking Staff within thirty days, without back wages, but with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Case Title: Nitin Sadashiv Khapne v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 53 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order