2018 (9) TMI 1928 - HC - Indian Laws

Stoppage of salary - suppression of leave - It is the case of the writ petitioner that his salary has been stopped from the month of August 2018 and he is greatly prejudiced by the same - submission of pension papers - HELD THAT - I am unable to comprehend as to why the petitioner has suppressed the documents in relation to application for leave for 356 days made on April 19 2018 while filing this writ petition. For him to get justice it is required that he comes before this Court with clean hands. Suppression of all the leaves that he has taken and admitted to is a material fact that is relevant in the present case as he is challenging the salary overdrawn by him as a result of the unsanctioned leave taken by him in the school. Without producing these documents in Court he has tried to create an impression that great injustice has been done to him by the school authorities for stopping the salary overdrawn on account of leave. These documents have not been disclosed in the writ petition and since these documents are the basis of the salary overdrawn calculated by the Administrator and provided to the petitioner the same amounts to suppression of material facts. Whether this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction should take note of the material suppression by the writ petitioner and dismiss this writ petition? - HELD THAT - The Indian and English Courts have consistently taken the view that one who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean. Anyone who approaches must give full and fair disclosure of all the materials. The Courts must not allow anyone to abuse the Court process. In case the petitioner conceals anything that is known to be material such an action would lead to an inference of fraud and even if not fraud definitely would lead to a presumption that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands - One must be even more careful when one approaches this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction for seeking a writ of mandamus and no person can be permitted to adopt dubious dishonest and fraudulent means and make false averments or conceal the facts while submitting such a writ petition. If a person does so not only is the petitioner not entitled to any relief from the Court but should be subject to exemplary costs so as to deter future litigants from pursuing a similar course of action. The writ petitioner has suppressed the material facts that should have been brought to the notice of this Court. This view of mine is buttressed by the fact that the documents produced by the respondent No. 5 referred to calculation of leave that has been made in the presence of the writ petitioner and were also handed over to him in the month of July 2018. Furthermore his own application for grant of special leave made in the month of April 2018 has not been annexed to the writ petition - The petition having been filed on August 28 2018 there are no justified reason as to why these documents were suppressed before this Court. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Stoppage of Salary
2. Suppression of Material Facts
3. Fraudulent Concealment
4. Doctrine of Clean Hands
5. Discretionary Jurisdiction of Writ Court

Detailed Analysis:

1. Stoppage of Salary
The writ petitioner was aggrieved by the stoppage of his salary through letters dated July 9, 2018, and July 19, 2018, issued by the Administrator of a government-sponsored higher secondary school. The petitioner claimed that his salary had been stopped since August 2018, causing him significant prejudice. The Administrator had earlier requested the petitioner to submit his leave record and clarification with supporting documents to process his e-pension upon retirement on January 31, 2019. The petitioner responded by requesting the school authorities to submit his pension papers and sought details of his service book regarding leave availed from May 1, 2009, to date. However, the petitioner did not provide any supporting documents for the leave records to the school authorities.

2. Suppression of Material Facts
The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, amounting to an abuse of the court process. The petitioner allegedly suppressed documents related to leave enjoyed from 1991 to 2018. The leave records were reconstructed and handed over to the petitioner on July 6, 2018. The petitioner was also absent for most of August and September 2018, except for six days. Furthermore, the petitioner applied for special leave for 356 days from 2011 to 2017, which was forwarded to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education but had not received a reply.

3. Fraudulent Concealment
The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed documents related to his application for leave for 356 days made on April 19, 2018. This suppression was material as it was relevant to the salary overdrawn due to unsanctioned leave. The court emphasized that suppression of material facts amounts to fraudulent concealment, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary and the Law Lexicon, which states that suppression of the truth is equivalent to suggesting falsehood.

4. Doctrine of Clean Hands
The court reiterated the principle that a petitioner must come with clean hands, disclosing all relevant materials and acting in good faith. Suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining any relief. The court cited several judgments, including S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, and Chittaranjan Das vs. Durgapore Project Ltd., to emphasize that fraud and justice cannot coexist, and fraud vitiates all solemn acts.

5. Discretionary Jurisdiction of Writ Court
The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and the court may refuse to entertain a writ petition if the petitioner has not acted in good faith. The court provided the petitioner an opportunity to withdraw the writ petition and file afresh with better particulars, which the petitioner refused. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition in limine, awarding exemplary costs of ?5,000 payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.

Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's suppression of material facts and failure to approach the court with clean hands. The court emphasized the importance of full and fair disclosure and the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings. The petitioner was ordered to pay exemplary costs, and the documents produced by the respondent were kept on record.

← Previous Next →