Skip to content


Sumer Mal Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1485 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1977WLN154
AppellantSumer Mal Singhvi
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredIn Ram Narain v. Municipal Board
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--petitioner concealed material facts--held, he cannot be allowed to withdraw writ petition.;the petitioners has deliberately concealed material facts and also insisted in pursuing the case on the basis of false averments even after the disclosure of the true facts by the opposite party and the perusal of the service record of the petitioner by this court, the petitioner must suffer the consequences of adopting dubious-mares for obtaining relief from this court. at such, permission cannot be accorded to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and the application dated march 11, 1977 is rejected.;writ rejected - .....police, jodhpur range. it has also been stated that the averment that by the petitioner that his service record was clean was not correct as it would appear from the service rolls that his three grade increments were withheld and he was awarded several punishments of censure.2. the service record of the petitioner was called for perusal of this court and it was found from a perusal thereof that the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner on four occasions and his increments were withheld on three occasions though without cumulative effect. thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the alleged orders of punishments of censure and withholding of increments except two, were not communicated to the petitioner. by the order of this court dated january 21,.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was compulsory retired under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthans Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, dated November 14, 1975. In this petition it has been prayed that the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner be set aside, because the petitioner had a clean record of service and there was nothing to warrant an action against him under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that an adverse remark was entered in his confidential rolls, which was communicated to him vide letter dated June 6, 1972 but he has made a representation in respect thereof & no decision has been communicated to him. According to the petitioner, the increments of the petitioner were withheld on two occasions without cumulative effect and there was no justification for passing the order of his compulsory retirement as his efficiency was not impaired. In reply, the respondents have controverted the averments mace by the petitioner and it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner regarding expunging the adverse remarks was rejected and the decision in respect thereof was conveyed to the petitioner by the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Head quarters, Jaipur dated March 6, 1973 through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range. It has also been stated that the averment that by the petitioner that his service record was clean was not correct as it would appear from the service rolls that his three grade increments were withheld and he was awarded several punishments of censure.

2. The service record of the petitioner was called for perusal of this Court and it was found from a perusal thereof that the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner on four occasions and his increments were withheld on three occasions though without cumulative effect. Thereupon, the learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted that the alleged orders of punishments of censure and withholding of increments except two, were not communicated to the petitioner. By the order of this Court dated January 21, 1977, the Additional Government Advocate was directed to furnish particulars to the petitioner about the various orders of censure and orders withholding increments passed against the petitioner. This order was complied with and the application submitted by the State on February 15, 1977 furnished details of seven orders of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, including four of censure and three of withholding increments and it was also specified in respect of such punishments that they were duly conveyed to the petitioner on the dates specified in the application and that the office copies of such orders bore the signatures of the petitioner. Today, an application has been submitted by the petitioner half-heartedly disputing the correctness of the contents of the application filed by the State Government dated February 15, 1977 and praying that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition as the same has abated, so that the petitioner may avail of an opportunity of pursuing another remedy by way of appeal.

3. I must observe that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, which are initiated for attracting the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, it is of utmost importance that the petitioner should come forward with clean hands. This Court cannot encourage the idea that a person is entitled to adopt dubious or dishonest or fraudulent mares and make false averments while submitting a writ petition in this Court and further when his falsehood is exposed by the other side putting the correct facts before the Court, it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It would be laving down a very dangerous principles in the conduct of human affairs if courts of law are allowed to be flooded with petitions based on false averments. This Court can help in its extraordinary jurisdiction only those persons who approach this Court with clean hands and if in a given case the court finds that the conduct of the petitioner has not been honest and free from deceit the Court cannot permit the petitioner to enter another forum without taking serious note of his conduct before this Court. Persons who are guilty of practicing deceitful means cannot be helped either by this Court or by any other forum, as relief in a court of law requites straight forward conduct. A person who adopts dubious means must suffer the consequences of his conduct, In the present case, the petitioner not only came with false allegations that his representation in respect of the adverse entry was not disposed of and decision thereof was not communicated to him and that he had no punishments to his credit except withholding of increments on two occasions, but when the State in its reply disclosed that more punishments of censure and stoppage of increments were awarded to the petitioner than disclosed by him and the adverse entry was not expunged and this fact was duly communicated to him and thereafter the service record of the petitioner was brought before this Court and was perused on January 21, 1977 and it was found that the petitioner was awarded punishments of censure on four occasions and his incitements were withheld on three occasions, even then learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted and argued that the said orders imposing punishments were not communicated to the petitioner. The application submitted on behalf of the State on February 15, 1977 shows that the orders imposing punishments of censure and withholding of increments were duly communicated to the petitioner and in most of the cases the office copies bore the signatures of the petitioner. There is no doubt in my mind, looking to the service record of the petitioner and the pleadings of the parties, that the petitioner dishonestly tried to put an innocent face while he had at least seven punishments and an adverse entry to his credit, of all of which he was fully aware. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner attempted to obtain relief from this Court by making false averments in the writ petition and even after his service record was produced before this Court his counsel insisted that the orders relating to the punishments were not communicated to him and that an affidavit has not been filed in support of the application of the State Government dated February 15, 1977. In Mangilal v. ATSTA Rajasthan, Jaipur 1956 384 this court held that a person who has not approached the Court with clean hands must suffer the consequences of his conduct In the present case, there being no doubt that the conduct of the petitioner has been far from being fair and honest and as he tried to build his case before this Court on the basis of false averments and as such, he does not deserve any consideration from this Court.

4. Mr. H.N. Calla appearing for the State opposed the application of the petitioner for withdrawing the writ petition; and submitted that in view of the false averments made by the petitioner, this court should not grant any indulgence to him to permit him to withdraw the writ petition. I am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner, having approached this Court making false averments and deliberately concealing true facts, he should not be allowed to withdraw the writ petition after the true facts have been disclosed before this Court by the opposite party and have been discovered by the Court on a perusal of the service record of the petitioner. In Ram Narain v. Municipal Board, Pali and Anr. (2). his Lordship P.N. Shinghal J. (as he then was) of this Court observed that, the petitioner who approaches the High Court for a writ of certiorari or mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution is under an obligation to the Court to make a full and correct disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge and if he does not do so and suppresses any material facts or is guilty of concealing material facts, the Court is entitled to dismiss the main petition without hearing the petitioner on merits.

5. In view of the conclusion to which I have arrived at that the petitioner has deliberately concealed material facts and also insisted in persuing the case on the basis of false averments even after the disclosure of the true facts by the opposite party and the perusal of the service record of the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner must suffer the consequences of adopting dubious means for obtaining relief from this Court. As such, permission cannot be accorded to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and the application dated March 11, 1977 is rejected Further, in view of the aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioner, the writ petition is also dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //