Page 1

                                                     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

Page 2

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.

Page 3

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.

Page 4

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.

Page 5

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-

Page 6

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

Page 7

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:

Page 8

“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   

Page 9

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)

Page 10

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

Page 11

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   

Page 12

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:

Page 13

“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   

Page 14

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

Page 15

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.

Page 16

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

Page 17

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.

Page 18

(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

Page 19

of a larger Bench.

             …..……….…………………………...J.                    [T.S. Thakur]

  …………….………………………………J.             [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; July 30, 2012