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

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  

2

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  

3

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.

4

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  

5

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  

6

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  

7

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  

8

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  

9

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.    

1