Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5671/2012
(@ SLP (C) No. 28608/2011)
Jainendra Singh ….Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. Tr.Prinl.Sec. Home .…Respondent
& Ors.
O R D E R
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.
1. Leave granted.
At the very threshold, we are confronted with a question as to
which of the judgments which have taken conflicting views have to be
followed in the matter of termination of a Constable in the Police
Department, who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called
upon to disclose after his selection was finalized and after order of
appointment was issued by placing him on probation.
2. The brief facts of the case are; the appellant applied for the post
of Constable pursuant to which he participated in the physical test
held in the month of October, 2006. He having cleared the physical test
was permitted to appear in the written examination which was held on
5.11.2006. Having come out successful in the written test also, he
participated in the interview held in the month of November, 2006.
After a subsequent medical examination, the appellant, along with
others was declared fit and was sent for training.
3. At the time of consideration of the appellant’s claim, a
Declaration Form in the form of an Affidavit was called for in order to
ascertain his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case.
The appellant submitted the Declaration Form on 10.11.2006 by swearing
to an affidavit.
4. In the said affidavit the appellant declared that he has not been
convicted by any Court; that no criminal case was registered against
him; that no criminal case was pending against him in any Court; that
no criminal case was under investigation against him; that he had never
been arrested by police in connection with any criminal case; that he
was never challaned in any criminal case and that his character was
clean and bright. At the end of the declaration, in paragraphs 15-16 he
declared that all the information/averments which he made in the
affidavit were true and correct and if any information/averment was
found to be false or incorrect after his selection on the said post
then his selection could be cancelled immediately without giving any
notice and he could be removed from the training course.
5. He also fully understood the position that if any of the
information/averment in that affidavit was found to be wrong or
concealed then he would agree for all the legal proceedings that would
be initiated against him.
6. However, it came to light that the appellant was involved in a
criminal case for an offence falling under Sections 147,323,336, I.P.C.
which was pending in the Court at the time of his selection though
subsequently he was acquitted by the competent Court on 04.01.2007.
7. Since the appellant concealed his involvement in a criminal case,
the Senior Superintendent of Police passed orders on 27.10.2007
terminating his appointment/ services on that ground.
8. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the appellant approached
the High Court by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 21900/2008 and by the
impugned order the High Court declined to interfere with the order of
termination holding that the appellant deliberately concealed the vital
information in order to secure employment and subsequent acquittal
would not enure to his benefit. The High Court while reaching upon
the above conclusion, relied upon a decision of this Court in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav – (2003) 3 SCC 437.
9. Besides the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant
while seeking leave to challenge the order impugned placed reliance
upon the three other decisions of this Court, namely, Kamal Nayan
Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.- 2010 (2) SCC 169; order
dated 19.8.2011 in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. – Civil Appeal
No. 7106/2011 and Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar –
(2011) 4 SCC 644.
10. Relying upon the above referred decisions, the learned counsel
contended that a different view than what has been expressed by this
Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) in
the matter of employment in Police services has been stated and the
appellant being identically placed, he is entitled for the same relief
as was granted in the above referred to decisions.
11. Learned counsel for the State, however, contended that the decision
reported in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra)
having laid down the principle after referring to the earlier decisions
on this issue and that in a series of subsequent decisions, the said
view having been followed consistently, no interference is called for
to the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal.
12. While appreciating the respective contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and on perusing the decisions relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the decision reported
in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), we feel
that a detailed analysis is required to be made in order to find out
whether the issue calls for further deliberations so as to arrive at an
authoritative pronouncement.
13. We have come across the following decisions in which this Court has
taken a similar view which has been propounded in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra). The said decisions are reported
in Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran - 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100,
Delhi Administration Through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil
Kumar -1996(11) SCC 605, Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Another - 1999(2) SCC 247,
Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. & Ors. Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu - 2005
(2) SCC 746, R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police & Ors -
(2008) 1 SCC 660, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen –
(2008) 11 SCC 314, Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.- (2010)
14 SCC 103, State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. SK. Nazrul Islam - 2011
(10) SCC 184.
14. We also find that the following decisions have taken a different
view than what has been expressed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs.
Ram Ratan Yadav(supra) i.e., Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. Vs.
Dhaval Singh - 1999 (1) SCC 246, Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors.(supra), Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar
(supra) and the unreported judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the appellant in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.(supra).
15. One common feature which we noted in all these cases is that all
the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench consisting of two-
Judges alone. Though in the decisions in which the principle laid down
in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) has been
either followed or similar view has been taken, we find a common thread
in all those decisions in having laid down as a preposition of law that
suppression of material information which a candidate was called upon
to furnish and which he failed to do, such concealment would result in
serious consequences and also not befitting the nature of service for
which such recruitment was made, the State would be well within its
powers to resort to cancellation of such appointment when the appointee
was under-going probation in order to ensure cleanliness in the
service.
16. We feel it appropriate to make a brief reference to the principles
laid down in the various decisions pro and cons in order to pass
appropriate orders in this appeal.
17. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v.
Sushil Kumar (supra); this Court held:
“3. It is seen that verification of the character and
antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the
selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though
he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview
and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent
record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint
a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force.
The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the
case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore,
was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration
of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal
offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would
be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be
appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the
actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take
care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case
is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority,
therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not
desirable to appoint him to the service.
(Emphasis added)
18. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (supra), this Court held:
“6…………Consequently, it has to be held that the respondents were
guilty of misrepresentation and fraud perpetrated on the appellant-
employer while getting employed in railway service and had snatched
such employment which would not have been made available to them if
they were not armed with such bogus and forged labourer service
cards.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
It was clearly a case of fraud on the appellant-employer. If once
such fraud is detected, the appointment orders themselves which
were found to be tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating
on the part of employees, were liable to be recalled and were at
least voidable at the option of the employer concerned. This is
precisely what has happened in the present case. Once the fraud of
the respondents in getting such employment was detected, the
respondents were proceeded against in departmental enquiries and
were called upon to have their say and thereafter have been removed
from service. Such orders of removal would amount to recalling of
fraudulently obtained erroneous appointment orders which were
avoided by the employer-appellant after following the due procedure
of law and complying with the principles of natural justice.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better
qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not
applied for the post because they did not possess the
qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a
fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in
such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the
qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the
perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. It is of course true as
noted by the Tribunal that the facts of the case in the aforesaid
decision were different from the facts of the present case. And it
is also true that in that case pending the service which was
continued pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the candidate
concerned acquired the requisite qualification and hence his
appointment was not disturbed by this Court. But that is neither
here not there. As laid down in the aforesaid decision, if by
committing fraud any employment is obtained, such a fraudulent
practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law.
Consequently, it must be held that the Tribunal had committed a
patent error of law in directing reinstatement of the respondent-
workmen with all consequential benefits.”
(Emphasis added)
19. In Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr. (supra), this Court held:
“6.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once
the Labour Court has found that the respondent was guilty of
suppression of relevant facts and had also snatched an order of
appointment which would not have been given to him had he not
deliberately concealed the fact about the aforesaid prosecution
against him for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, there was no question of awarding him any lesser punishment
save and except confirming the order of termination. In this
connection, he invited our attention to a decision of this Court in
the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100]
wherein it has been clearly held that when appointment is procured
by a workman on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer’s
service card, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the
employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in favour of the
workman or any estoppel against the employer and for such
misconduct, termination would be justified and there was no
question of holding any domestic enquiry.
7. There could be no dispute on this settled legal
position……………”
In this decision, the employee had already completed his
probation and, however, having regard to the peculiar facts involved
therein, this Court interfered with the order of termination. This
Court at the end of the judgment has made it clear that the said order
was rendered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
would not be treated as a precedent in future.
20. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav(supra), this
Court laid down the law in no uncertain terms in para 12:
“12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and
13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the
candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents
to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having
suppressed material information and/ or giving false information
cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having
regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had
discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear
in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking
information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the
nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case
ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a
view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to
continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has
failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying
that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the
offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been
involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case
the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in
Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a
teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of
impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the
aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from
service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a
finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the
appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the
order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in
taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government
and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the
order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent
accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of
the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the
respondent informed that the suppression of any information may
lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form,
the respondent has certified that the information given by him is
correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he
could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he
could not certify so. Having certified that the information given
by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted.
The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has
been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the
argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para
9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic,
cannot be accepted.”
(Emphasis
added)
21. In Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy. A.P. & Ors. Vs. B.Chinnam Naidu
(supra), this Court held:
“7. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
As is noted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Case the object of
requiring information in various columns like column 12 of the
attestation form and declaration thereafter by the candidate is to
ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate
suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he
cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.
There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts
of the case it cannot be said that the respondent had made false
declaration or had suppressed material information.”
(Emphasis added)
Here again in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court
thought it fit to interfere with the order of termination.
22. In R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police and Ors.
(supra), this Court held:
“10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment
in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended
to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person
who intended to serve in other services. Application for
appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in
English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his
statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact
that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority
could have verified his character as also suitability of the
appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the
persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly
situated had not been appointed.
13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed
a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion
that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour
would not arise.”
(Emphasis added)
23. In Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen- (supra), this
Court held:
“10. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of
service of the respondent is not his involvement in the two cases
which were then pending, and in which he had been discharged
subsequently, but the fact that he had withheld relevant
information while filling in the attestation form. We are further
of the opinion that an employment as a police officer pre-supposes
a high level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold
the law, and on the contrary, such a service born in deceit and
subterfuge cannot be tolerated.”
(Emphasis added)
24. In Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), all the
earlier decisions right from Delhi Administration through its Chief
Secretary and Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) ending with Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen(supra) including Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav(supra) were considered in detail and the
preposition of law was laid down as under:
“16. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from
service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: i) on
the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed
from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a
criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or
by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in
examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from
college, etc.; and (ii) on the ground of suppression of material
information or making false statement in reply to queries relating
to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was
ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).This ground is distinct
from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows
a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of
making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the
post.”
(Emphasis added)
25. In State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Sk. Nazrul Islam (supra),
this Court held:
“3. On 28.09.2007, the respondent was supplied a
verification roll for verification of his antecedents and the
respondent filled the verification roll and submitted the same to
the Reserve Officer, Howrah, on 29.09.2007. The verification roll
of the respondent was sent to the District Intelligence Branch,
Howrah, on 08.10.2007. In the course of enquiry, it came to light
that he was involved in a criminal case involving offences under
Sections 148/323/380/427/596, IPC in Bagnan PS Case No.97 of 2007
and after investigation, the charge-sheet had already been filed in
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia,
Howrah, and that the respondent had surrendered before the Court
and had been granted bail. All these facts, however, had been
concealed in Column 13 of the verification roll submitted by the
respondent in which he was required to state whether he was ever
arrested, detained or convicted. The authorities, therefore, did
not appoint the respondent as a constable.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections
148/323/380/427/596, IPC, against the respondent was pending in the
Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia,
Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to
the authorities to appoint the respondent as a constable. Surely,
the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate
to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so
long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case
of the charges under Sections 148/323/380/427/596 IPC, he cannot
possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of
constable.”
(Emphasis added)
26. As against the above decisions, a contrary view has been expressed
by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dhaval Singh
(supra), Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors.(supra), Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra)
and in an un-reported decision in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors.(supra).
27. In Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dhaval Singh (supra),
the factum of concealment of relevant information, namely, pendency of
a criminal case against the concerned applicant was not in dispute.
This Court, however, distinguished the said case by stating that after
the provisional selection as well as the interview and before the order
of appointment was issued, he voluntarily disclosed the pending
criminal case by stating that by inadvertence he omitted to mention the
same in the appropriate column and that he was subsequently acquitted.
The said criminal case was also noted while granting the relief in
favour of the candidate. The ratio laid down in the decision in Delhi
Administration Through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar
(supra) was distinguished by stating that no such corrective measure
was initiated by the candidate in Delhi Administration Through its
Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) case. In Commissioner
of Police, Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dhaval Singh (supra) decision it was held:
“5. That there was an omission on the part of the
respondent to give information against the relevant column in the
Application Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in
dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15-11-
1995 to the appellant that he had inadvertently failed to mention
in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal
case against him and that his letter may be treated as
“information”. Despite receipt of this communication, the
candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order
of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on
20-11-1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on
15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of
the appellant to have considered that application and apply its
mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an inadvertent
mistake before passing the order. That, however, was not done. It
is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the
inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by
the trial court — it was much before that. It is also obvious that
the information was conveyed voluntarily. In vain, have we searched
through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the
other record for any observation relating to the information
conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 and whether that
application could not be treated as curing the defect which had
occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication
was disposed of either. Did the competent authority ever have a
look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of
candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the
circumstances was without any proper application of mind and
without taking into consideration all relevant material. The
Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold the order of
the Tribunal, though for slightly different reasons, as mentioned
above.
(Emphasis added)
28. In the decision in, Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhra
Pradesh & Ors.(supra), the ratio decidendi in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav(supra) has been set
out in para 14:
“14. Therefore, the ratio decidendi of Ram Ratan Yadav is,
where an employee (probationer) is required to give his
personal data in an attestation form in connection with his
appointment (either at the time of or thereafter), if it is
found that the employee had suppressed or given false
information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his
fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from
service during the period of probation without holding any
inquiry. The decision dealt with a probationer and not a holder
of a civil post, and nowhere laid down a proposition that a
confirmed employee holding a civil post under the State, could
be terminated from service for furnishing false information in
an attestation form, without giving an opportunity to meet the
charges against him.
(Emphasis added)
In the said case, the appellant was appointed much earlier
and that while he was in service he was prosecuted for involvement in a
criminal case for an offence u/s 148,324/149,326/149 and 506 IPC in
which he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on 9.9.2004. The
information furnished by him after more than a decade of his employment
and the procedure followed while taking a decision in passing the
ultimate order, this Court held that the appellant therein was entitled
for the relief of reinstatement.
29. In Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar(supra), the
order of termination was interfered with holding as under:
12. It is true that in the application form the
respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case
under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of
fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At
any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity
or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be take in the
matter.”
This was also a case where the candidate after qualifying
in all the tests, for the first time in the attestation form, disclosed
his involvement in a criminal case which was compromised and
subsequently based on such compromise he was acquitted. A Show-Cause
notice was also issued to him asking him to show cause why his
candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had
concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and had made
a wrong statement in his application form. A challenge was made by him
before the Administrative Tribunal which declined to interfere.
However, the High Court granted the relief, set aside the proposal for
cancellation of his candidature. This Court also upheld the order of
the High Court by granting the relief as quoted in para 12 above.
30. In the unreported decision in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.(supra), while suppression of the registration of a criminal case
against the appellant therein was not in dispute; it was held that what
was required to be considered by the appointing authority was to
satisfy himself as to the suitability of the applicant to the post
based on the nature of crime alleged against the applicant. It was
held:
“9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with
the report dated 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
affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time
of recruitment.
Ultimately the appointing authority was directed to take back
the applicant without grant of any back wages.
31. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division
Bench of this Court consisting of two-Judges and having bestowed our
serious consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with
such an issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the various cardinal
principles before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:
(i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled
by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent
employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis
of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer.
(ii) Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable
to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the
appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a
disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
(iii) When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the
employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any
estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without
holding any inquiry.
(iv) A candidate having suppressed material information and/or
giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and
the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as
other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
. Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of
verification of the character/antecedents at the time of
recruitment and suppression of such material information will
have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the
candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
(vi) The person who suppressed the material information and/or
gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or
continuity in service.
(vii) The standard expected of a person intended to serve in
uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore,
any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can
be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing
authority cannot be faulted.
(viii) An employee on probation can be discharged from service or
may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material
information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the
criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was
acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a
person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
(ix) An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of
integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the
contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be
tolerated.
(x) The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of
appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a
candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable
and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case,
he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of
Constable.
32. When we consider the above principles laid down in majority of the
decisions, the question that looms large before us is when consideration
of such claim by the candidates who deliberately suppressed information
at the time of recruitment; can there be different yardsticks applied in
the matter of grant of relief.
33. Though there are very many decisions in support of the various
points culled out in the above paragraphs, inasmuch as we have noted
certain other decisions taking different view of coordinate Benches, we
feel it appropriate to refer the above mentioned issues to a larger Bench
of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement so that there will be no
conflict of views and which will enable the Courts to apply the law
uniformily while dealing with such issues.
34. With that view, we feel it appropriate to refer this matter to be
considered by a larger Bench of this Court. Registry is directed to place
all the relevant documents before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
constitution of a larger Bench.
…..……….…………………………...J.
[T.S. Thakur]
…………….………………………………J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
July 30, 2012
