Termination of Services For Non-Disclosure Of Commission Of Offence Of Trivial Nature Is Harsh Punishment: Bombay High Court
|Before joining the services, the Employee was punished under Section 12 of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act by awarding punishment till rise of Court and fine of Rs.250/- was imposed against him.
The Bombay High Court observed that termination of the employee on the grounds of non-disclosure of a trivial offence committed by him would be a harsh punishment.
Before joining the services, the Employee was punished for Gambling as he was playing cards with his friends. He was awarded punishment till rise of Court and fine of Rs.250/- was imposed against him.
The Bench of Justice Pravin S. Patil and Justice M.S. Jawalkar observed, “In the background of above said legal position and considering the facts of the present Petition, it is clear that the Petitioner was punished under Section 12 of the Gambling Act and awarded punishment till rise of court and fine of Rs.250/- for playing Cards (gambling). According to us, the offence, for which fine was imposed against the Petitioner, is neither serious nor heinous offence, the same falls in category of trivial offence…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 same is not reflected from the impugned order.”
Advocate B. Lahiri represented the Petitioner, while Advocate C.J. Dhumane represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The Petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds by the Ordinance Factory against the post of Multi-Tasking Staff/Labourer in 2020. The Petitioner sworn an affidavit stating that no criminal proceedings were pending against him nor he has been convicted by any competent court of law for any offence.
However, in 2021, the Ordinance Factory issues a show cause notice to the Petitioner stating that he has suppressed information regarding the offence registered against him. The Petitioner was accused under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act the Petitioner was punished under Section 12 of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act by awarding punishment Till Rise of Court and fine of Rs.250/- was imposed against him.
The Petitioner clarified that the said offence was registered while playing Cards for entertainment with his friends and requested that the offence being trivial in nature should be considered positively and punishment of termination from the services would be harsh in nature. However, the Petitioner's services was terminated with immediate effect.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed stating that the offence registered against the Petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Gambling Act was a serious offence and as the same was not disclosed while tendering his
attestation form as well as affidavit.
Court’s Observation
The question before the Court was that whether on the count of non disclosing the fact of registration of offence, termination order issued by the Ordinance Factory was justified in the matter?
After relying on various judgements, the Court observed that an employee was not to be terminated automatically from service just by a stroke of pen. The employer should take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria, while taking appropriate decisions. Merely suppression does not mean that an employer can arbitrarily terminate the services of employees.
"According to us, the offence, for which fine was imposed against the Petitioner, is neither serious nor heinous offence, the same falls in category of trivial offence. Furthermore, 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 same is not reflected from the impugned order", the Court observed.
Further, the Court also took into account of the fact that
the nature of work of the Petitioner was of a Class-IV employee, coupled with the fact that Petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground in the department, and therefore, the whole family was dependent on him.
Accordingly, the Petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Nitin Sadashiv Khapne V. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:8264-DB)
Click here to read/download Judgment