Writ petition dismissed for suppression of facts, emphasizing full disclosure & fraud vitiating proceedings. Exemplary costs awarded.

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.

---

---

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 Rs. 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.

---