Gita Mittal, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner makes a prayer for directions to the respondent/bank to withdraw the letter dated 13th April, 2000 (Annexure P-17) and seeks grant of appointment to the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated and to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are noticed hereinafter. It appears that the petitioner is a handicapped person having 100% disability of hearing impairment in both ears which has been admittedly assessed as 100% disability. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent/bank on probation as a clerk/typist on 18th October, 1999 subject to his acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment set out in the letter of the same date. It was stated in this letter that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on probation which would initially be for a period of six months from the date of his joining extendable by a further period not exceeding three years. The bank reserved the right to dispense with the services of the petitioner even on the expiry of the probation period without assigning any reasons. As per para 11 of the appointment letter, confirmation of the petitioner was subject to satisfactory reports regarding his character and antecedents upon verification by the police. It was stipulated that if the police report was adverse, his services could be terminated.

3. There is no dispute that upon the character report being sought from the local police, it was reported by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that the petitioner had been implicated in a case by the wife of his elder brother. This criminal case was registered as FIR No. 140/95 under Sections 498A/406/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi. It was also reported that in this case, apart from the petitioner, his elder brother and other close relatives had been implicated and that the case was pending trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. On the allegation that the petitioner had failed to disclose his implication and pendency of this case in Column No. XII on his attestation form, he was refused confirmation and his services were terminated vide an order dated 13th April, 2000 on the ground of the unsatisfactory character report received from the police.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 3152/2000 seeking the following prayer:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Honble Court be pleased to issue writ/writs of certiorari, of mandamus and/or any other writ/rule/order/direction including setting aside and quashing the impugned orders (Annexures 1 and 2) and directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to place the petitioner back in service and pay to him all the arrears of salary, service benefits with interest at 18% per annum and with costs of the case. Such further and other orders be also passed as may be fit and proper.

6. It is noteworthy that Annexure 1 to the writ petition was the order dated 13th April, 2000 whereby it was ordered that the petitioner shall not be confirmed in service and that he shall stand terminated from the services of the bank with immediate effect while Annexure 2 was a letter dated 24th May, 2000 whereby the respondent/bank intimated the petitioner that it would not entertain any correspondence from the petitioner.

7. After a detailed consideration of the submissions made by both sides, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the following observations:

Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and is dismissed. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

In the event the petitioner is discharged from the aforesaid criminal case or he is acquitted of the charges by the Criminal Court, he may approach the Bank for a fresh appointment on which the Bank shall consider his case for fresh appointment in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner assailed this judgment dated 11th January, 2001 in LPA No. 116/2001 which was withdrawn by him on 3rd December, 2002. The order recorded by the Division Bench was in the following terms:

Learned Counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the appellant would like to approach the bank for a fresh appointment in consonance with the directions of the learned Single Judge dated 11th January, 2001.

In view of the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. It will be open to the appellant to approach the bank for fresh appointment in consonance with the directions of the learned Single Judge.

9. In view of the observations made by this Court on 11th January, 2001 and the submissions made before the Division Bench in the writ appeal, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondent/bank by a communication dated 16th December, 2002 seeking appointment with the bank. A reminder in respect thereof was also sent on 27th January, 2003 which has been placed on record as Annexure P20 at page 50. This was followed by a legal notice dated 28th November, 2003 (Annexure P21 at page 51).

10. Having received no consideration in terms of the directions made by this Court on 11th January, 2001 in W.P.(C) No. 3152/2000, the petitioner feeling thoroughly harassed filed the present writ petition.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Reliance has been placed by the respondent on its records which have been produced before this Court. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 11th January, 2001, he was permitted to make an application to the respondent/bank in the event of his discharge/acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner contends that he made the same as back as on 16th December, 2002. It is submitted that the respondent/bank was required to consider the same as a fresh application without being influenced by any proceedings which had transpired prior thereto. The factum of the acquittal/discharge of the petitioner deserves to have been considered favourably. It is further submitted that the failure to disclose the pendency of the criminal case in the earlier application has resulted in the termination of his services and the petitioner stood penalised for the same inasmuch as his writ petition was dismissed and no directions seeking reinstatement were passed in his favour.

12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/bank has submitted that the respondent/bank has considered the case of the petitioner and has rejected the same. It is vehemently contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of the criminal case and that there is no question of the respondent/bank granting any appointment to the petitioner.

13. I have given my considered thoughts to the submissions made. For the action of the petitioner in failing to disclose the criminal case, he has suffered the consequences thereof. The respondent/bank proceeded to terminate his employment forthwith. The petitioner failed in his effort to get reinstatement on appeal to the bank and also in the litigation wherein he assailed the banks action. This being the position, the Court had considered it appropriate that the petitioner make an application to the respondent/bank which was directed to be treated as a fresh application seeking appointment. The application was to be considered in terms of the order dated 11th January, 2001 as a fresh application de hors the considerations which had weighed with the respondent/bank for termination of his services.

14. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in matrimonial litigations, on account of acrimony and persuaded by the desire to wreak vengeance against the spouse and his family, it is often the practice to implicate all relatives irrespective of their involvement or not in the disputes between the spouses. The petitioner appears to have been the victim of such allegations. In any case, it is an admitted position that the criminal case against the petitioner stands withdrawn by the complainant who was his sister-in-law, that is the wife of Shri Sandeep Varma, elder brother of the petitioner. A copy of the compromise effected between the two spouses has been placed on record. It has also been pointed out that the complainant in the criminal case, made a statement in this Court on 2nd November, 2001 in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 3943/2001 stating that all her differences with her ex-husband had been sorted out and she had wanted the criminal case and the proceedings emanating therefrom quashed. Order in this behalf was passed by this Court on 2nd February, 2001 in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 3943/2001.

It was in the background of these facts and in terms of the liberty given by this Court in the judgment dated 11th January, 2001 in W.P.(C) No. 3152/2000 that the petitioner approached the respondent/bank for a fresh appointment.

15. Perusal of the file produced before me shows that the entire consideration of the application of the petitioner made thereafter, has been as if the petitioner was seeking reinstatement and setting aside of the termination order dated 13th April, 2002. The notes put up by the officials of the bank also relate to failure of the petitioner to disclose the FIR which had been registered against him and the case which was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

However, I also find that in the noting dated 7th April, 2003, the circle views have been taken and the same have been noticed thus:

In the case of Sri. Akshay Verma, the termination of Sri. Akshay Verma was on the basis of the relevant material available with the bank as on that date. Subsequent acquittal in the criminal case shall not bind the bank for the reinstatement nor the Bank is legally obliged. In view of the above, we need not consider the representation of Sri. Akshay Kumar for reappointment.

16. Thus the circle office where the petitioner had worked had recommended that the case of Akshay Verma (the present petitioner) may be considered favourably. However, I find that a view has been taken by the head office that the services of the petitioner stood terminated on the ground of the afore-noticed police report and, therefore, he ought not to be reinstated. A reference has been made to the case of another employee without mentioning the nature of the offence in which such employee was implicated and again it has been observed that for the same reasons, the petitioner did not deserve to be reinstated.

17. On 7th April, 2003, the Head Office of the respondent made the following recommendations:

xxx xxx xxx

In the case of Sri. Akshay Verma, the termination of Sri. Akshay Verma was on the basis of the relevant material available with the Bank as on that date. Subsequent acquittal in the criminal case shall not bind the Bank for the reinstatement nor the Bank is legally obliged. In view of the above, we need not consider the representation of Sri. Akshay Kumar for reappointment.

18. Reference has been made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported in 1997 SLR 23 entitled Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar. However, perusal of the judgment shows that it has no bearing on the matter in issue. The Apex Court was concerned with the claim of reinstatement. The case before the Apex Court did not relate to an employee who though had been terminated from service for an alleged misdemeanour, thereafter, sought appointment afresh.

19. As I have noticed hereinabove, the present case does not relate to reinstatement into service but a consideration of an application made after acquittal of all charges and placing all the relevant material facts before the respondent/bank. Directions to this effect were made by this Court on 11th January, 2001. From the record of the bank as placed before the Court, the respondent has taken the position that it need not consider the petitioners representation.

20. It has been stated orally at the Bar that the bank had addressed a communication dated 29th May, 2003 to the petitioner. However, the record produced before me does not contain any such communication.

21. I also find that in a communication dated 8th October, 2004, addressed by the Divisional Manager from the Head Office to the Circle Office, it is noticed thus:

We have perused the draft counter forwarded to us and find the same generally in order. Sri Akshay Verma was terminated on the basis of the unsatisfactory police report on his character and antecedents available on that day. Subsequent acquittal in the criminal case will not affect the legality or validity of the order and he shall not be entitled for reinstatement. In a similar case, Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, 1997 (1) SCR 123, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the view taken by the appointment authority not to appoint a person of such character and antecedents cannot be said to be unwarranted. Further, what would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result of the criminal case.

22. The action of the respondents would be in blatant disregard of the directions made by this Court in the judgment dated 11th January, 2001. The respondents have failed to notice that taking cognizance of the conduct of the petitioner and receipt of the police report, his services were terminated and reinstatement was denied to him even by this Court. He was only given opportunity to make a fresh application which would deserve consideration in accordance with law.

23. For all the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent/bank has failed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 16th December, 2002 as an application seeking fresh appointment as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 11th January, 2001. The respondent bank was required to consider his case for fresh appointment in accordance with law as per the applicable rules.

24. The respondent/bank is, therefore, directed to consider the application dated 16th February, 2002 filed by the petitioner in accordance with the directions by this Court made on 11th January, 2001 as if it is a case of fresh appointment in accordance with the rules within a period of six weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be given within a period of six weeks from today.