Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the Chief Administrative Office, of the Principal District and Sessions court, and said:“We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment. It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment.”The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar], had issued a notification dated 11.11.2011 inviting applications for posts of Stenographers, Typists, Copyists and Peons, in the Judicial Department, Kolar District, from all eligible candidates in the format as enclosed along with the said notification. The said notification indicated that there were fifteen (15) vacancies for the post of 'Peon'. The respondent furnished his application in terms of the said notification, within the stipulated period. The respondent was selected for the post, under a reserved category. He had also submitted the certificate of caste and income. The said certificates were forwarded by the appellants to the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura District, Vijayapura, for verification under the cover of a letter dated 03.01.2017. Simultaneously the appellants also sent a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura District, Vijayapura, requesting for a verification of the background of some of the selected candidates, including the respondent. The police authorities reported that the respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and had paid a fine of Rs 300, before the JMFC Court of Muddebihal. On receipt of the said report, the appellant passed the order dated 20.09.2018 cancelling the respondent's appointment as a Peon.The counsel for the appellants argued that the question whether the respondent was convicted of a petty offence, is not material. However, the fact that the respondent had concealed the same, was a sufficient reason to cancel the appointment. The bench noted that appellants had contested the petition on the ground that the offence for which the respondent was convicted [offence punishable under Section 87 of the KP Act, involved moral turpitude. It was not the appellants' case that the respondent's appointment required to be terminated as he had failed to disclose his conviction for the said offence. Further, it said “Respondent was convicted of the offence on 28.12.2013, which was after he had made the application for appointment pursuant to the notification dated 11.11.2011.” It said, “The statement of objections filed by the appellants to the writ petition, clearly indicates that it did not contain any averment to the effect that the respondent's appointment had been cancelled on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars on account of concealment of the fact of his conviction for the offence.” Following which it held “There is no material on record to support the contention that the respondent's appointment was cancelled on account of non-disclosure of his conviction. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept that the order dated 20.09.2018 can be sustained on the ground that the respondent had furnished inaccurate particulars.”Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others : (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein the court observed that, in cases of higher posts or sensitive positions, the employer would be justified in invoking a strict criteria. However, for lower posts, the criteria may be more relaxed. The bench said “In the given facts and circumstances of this case, we find no ground to fault the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” Appearance: Senior Advocate Sriranga for Advocate Sumana Naganand.Advocate Tumbigi Prabhugouda Basavantarayagouda for R1. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags