//
you're reading...
legal issues

How to differentiate the judgments with one another and how to interpretate the same=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.

Kendriya Vidyalaya, BEML Nagar, KGF

Image via Wikipedia

 
                     
                          Reportable
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withdrawn   and   the   offences   in   which   the   respondent   was 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.

               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.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,951 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: