Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7106 OF 2011
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 12091 of 2010]
Ram Kumar ...... Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. & Ors. ...... Respondents
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against the order dated 31.08.2009 of
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special
Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellant
against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(C) No.40674 of 2007.
3. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on
2
19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and
he submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2006 to the recruiting
authority in the proforma of verification roll. In the affidavit
dated 12.06.2006, he made various statements required for
the purpose of recruitment and in para 4 of the affidavit he
stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He
was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed
for training. Thereafter, the Jaswant Nagar Police Station,
District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007 stating
that Criminal Case No.275/2001 under Sections
324/323/504 IPC was registered against the appellant and
thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and the
appellant was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report,
a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed. The report dated
15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District
Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad. By order dated 08.08.2007, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of
3
selection of the appellant on the ground that he had submitted
an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts
and his selection was irregular and illegal.
4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.40674 of
2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the
Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition by his order dated 30.08.2007. The learned
Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false
information in his affidavit in the proforma verification roll, his
case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this
Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] and that he was rightly
terminated from service without any inquiry. The appellant
challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special
Appeal No.924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High
Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the
same by the impugned order dated 31.08.2009.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant had been acquitted by the order dated 18.07.2002 of
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case
4
No.275 of 2001 and for this reason when the appellant
furnished the affidavit dated 12.06.2006 in the prescribed
verification roll, four years after the order of the acquittal, he
did not think it necessary to state in the affidavit about this
criminal case. He submitted that in any case, a copy of the
order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal
Case No.275 of 2001 would show that the crime related to a
minor incident which took place on 02.12.2000 and as there
was no evidence against the appellant, the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges
under Sections 324/34/504 IPC. He submitted that therefore
this is not a fit case in which the selection of the appellant
should have been cancelled. He cited Commissioner of Police
and Others v. Sandeep Kumar [2011(3) SCALE 606] in which
this Court has taken a view that cancellation of candidature to
the post of temporary Head Constable for the suppression and
failure to disclose in the verification roll/application about his
involvement in an incident resulting in a criminal case under
Sections 325/34 of the IPC when the candidate was a young
man, was not justified.
5
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as
the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Besides relying on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra),
he also relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and in particular the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958 under which a verification had to be
carried out with regard to the character of the candidate who
was being considered for appointment. He submitted that in
accordance with the Government instructions in the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958, candidates desiring
appointment to various posts in Government service were
required to submit a detailed affidavit furnishing details of
their character and antecedents.
7. We have carefully read the Government Order dated
28.04.1958 on the subject `Verification of the character and
antecedents of government servants before their first
appointment' and it is stated in the Government order that the
6
Governor has been pleased to lay down the following
instructions in supercession of all the previous orders:
"The rule regarding character of candidate for
appointment under the State Government shall
continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct
appointment must be such as to render him
suitable in all respects for employment in the
service or post to which he is to be appointed.
It would be duty of the appointing authority
to satisfy itself on this point."
It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the
Governor that the object of the verification of the character
and antecedents of government servants before their first
appointment is to ensure that the character of a government
servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him
suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to
which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the
appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.
8. In the facts of the present case, we find that though
Criminal Case No.275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504
IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant
Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant
7
had been acquitted by order dated 18.07.2002 by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. On a reading of
the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate would show that the sole witness examined before
the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the
Court that on 02.12.2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were
quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and
Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and
someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle
Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a
brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused
persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other
witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under
Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all
possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the
appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a
police constable.
9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated
8
15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the
order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to
whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service
or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he
has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal
and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the
proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been
registered against him. As has been stated in the instructions
in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the
appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to
whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the
post of a constable, with reference to the nature of
suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of
considering whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing
authority has mechanically held that his selection was
irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an
9
affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of
recruitment.
10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
Ratan Yadav (supra) relied on by the respondents, a criminal
case had been registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B
read with Section 34 IPC and was pending against the
respondent in that case and the respondent had suppressed
this material in the attestation form. The respondent,
however, contended that the criminal case was subsequently
withdrawn and the offences in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved were also not of serious nature.
On these facts, this Court held that the respondent was to
serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya
and he could not be suitable for appointment as the character,
conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact
on the minds of the students of impressionable age and if the
authorities had dismissed him from service for suppressing
material information in the attestation form, the decision of
the authorities could not be interfered with by the High Court.
The facts of the case in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
1
Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore materially
different from the facts of the present case and the decision
does not squarely cover the case of the appellant as has been
held by the High Court.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside
the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order
of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the
appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be
taken back in service within a period of two months from
today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the
period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order
as to costs.
..........................J.
(R. V.
Raveendran)
..........................J.
(A. K.
Patnaik)
New Delhi,
August 19, 2011.
