Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has imposed cost of Rs 25,000 on a former State Bank of India (SBI) branch manager for concealing that his petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service for charges of “corruption” had already been rejected by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while dismissing the petition of the ex-manager, Madan Lal Goria, residing at Talab Tillo, Jammu, found “the petitioner has approached this court by concealment of the facts, therefore, it is a fit case that he is burdened with the costs of Rs 25,000 to be deposited within four weeks from today before the Registry of this Court”.
The petitioner through the medium of a petition, sought quashment of order dated 01.04.2014, by Chief General Manager, Appellate Authority, SBI, whereby penalty of Compulsory Retirement had been imposed upon the petitioner.
The petitioner while serving as Manager, SBI, Branch Bharmar, Himachal Pradesh, was charged in 2010 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Nargal of the J&K & Ladakh High Court while examining the record supplied by the respondents, found that the petitioner branch manager had previously filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, registered as CWP 6714 of 2012-B.
The petition had been dismissed in 2013, involving facts and circumstances strikingly similar to those in the present case filed before the High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
“The petitioner has deliberately concealed this crucial and material fact from this court and after earning dismissal, the petitioner has now again approached this court through the medium of instant petition to avail the efficacious remedy on equitable grounds.
“Specifically, there is no mention or clear averment in the instant petition regarding the filing of the previous writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh despite the striking similarity of the issue raised,” observed the bench of Justice Nargal.
The Himachal High Court had recorded “it is well settled that for the same offence/incident in addition to criminal proceedings, disciplinary proceedings may also be proceeded by the department concerned if required, and even if criminal proceedings come to an end, the State government is always free to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings separately”.
Justice Nargal said “the omission on part of the petitioner is not a mere oversight, but a deliberate attempt to withhold material information, that could potentially influence the court’s decision. The failure to disclose the existence of the prior petition filed before High Court of Himachal Pradesh is a material fact that goes to the very foundation of the petitioner’s case. Such non-disclosure on part of the petitioner not only falls within the realm of misleading the court, but also raises serious questions about the credibility of the petitioner’s current claim in the instant petition’.
The bench remarked “the petitioner has engaged himself in conduct by representing a petition before this court without revealing the earlier proceedings and earning dismissal in the same and also by relying on false and flimsy grounds, and the same tantamount to fraudulent misrepresentation”.
It said the act of concealing such a significant fact from the court amounts to an attempt to mislead the judicial process, thereby violating the principles of good faith and transparency that actually govern the legal proceedings.
The petitioner’s conduct, it said, clearly constitutes an abuse of the legal remedies and the deliberate misrepresentation of facts with an intention to deceive the court. His actions are designed to mislead the court and obtain a favourable judgement by suppressing the material facts, which is a serious legal and ethical violation of the fundamental principles of justice and fairness.
It added the law is well settled that the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution will only be granted to the person, who comes to the court with clean hands. This means that a party seeking judicial intervention must come to the court in good faith without any form of deception, misrepresentation or fraud. The court has to exercise its discretion in favour of justice, fairness and equity and will deny relief to a party, whose conduct does not fall within these principles.
The court reiterated that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief interim or final.
