Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1964 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 871 of 2017)
UMESH CHANDRA YADAV …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND CHIEF
SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F.,
NORTHERN RAILWAY,
NEW DELHI & OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant was indisputedly a juvenile when a criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.03.12
12:03:11 IST
Reason:
th
case was instituted against him on 25 October, 1997 for offences
under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC with an allegation that he
1
had fraudulently prepared a forged caste certificate. After the
chargesheet came to be filed against him, he moved an application
seeking discharge and the learned ACJM recorded a categorical
finding that prosecution has failed to collect sufficient evidence
against the appellant and he was discharged from the alleged
th
offences by an Order dated 15 December, 2001.
3. After almost a decade thereafter, the advertisement came to be
rd
published by the respondents dated 23 February, 2011 for holding
recruitment and selection of constables in Railway Protection Force.
In pursuance to the advertisement, selection process was initiated
in June 2014 and after undergoing the process of selection,
appellant was finally selected and sent for training to Police Recruit
th
Training Centre, Hoshiarpur by letter dated 7 October, 2014.
st
Pursuant thereto, he joined the training center on 1 November
2014. The appellant was shocked when he was served with the
th
Order cancelling his appointment by order dated 19 February,
2015 on the premise of nondisclosure of criminal case being
instituted against him in the year 1997.
2
th
4. The Order dated 19 February, 2015 regarding cancellation of
his appointment came to be challenged by filing writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Allahabad.
5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the
material available on record and also the fact that he was a juvenile
when the criminal case was instituted against him in the year 1997
and the fact that the learned trial Judge had passed the order of
th
discharge dated 15 December, 2001 arrived at the conclusion that
it was not the case of suppression of material information which
may deprive him of his appointment and placing reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Vs.
Ram Kumar State of Uttar Pradesh
1 th
and Others , set aside the order of cancellation dated 19
February, 2015 with a direction to reconsider the case of the
appellant afresh in light of the observations made under the
th
judgment dated 20 January, 2016.
th
6. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20
January, 2016 was the subject matter of challenge in appeal filed at
the instance of respondents. The Division Bench of the High Court
1 2011(14) SCC 709
3
proceeded on a straight jacket formula on the premise that since
the fact of criminal case once instituted against him is not
disclosed, that appears to be the material suppression and in
consequence thereof, while setting aside the judgment of the
th
learned Single Judge, allowed the appeal by an Order dated 6 May,
2016 that became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before
us.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this fact is not
disputed that the date of birth of the appellant which is recorded in
th th
the school records is 15 July, 1985 and on 25 October 1997,
when the criminal case was instituted against him, he was 12 years
of age. No such charges, at all, could have been levelled against the
juvenile of an allegation that he had fraudulently prepared a forged
caste certificate and in mechanical process, the chargesheet came
to be filed but the learned trial Judge on examination of the record,
th
discharged the appellant by an Order dated 15 December, 2001
after recording a categorical finding that there was no evidence
available on record on the basis of which the charge could be prima
facie proved against the appellant for either of the offences levelled
4
against him and after a decade, the process of selection was
initiated by the respondents pursuant to an advertisement dated
rd
23 February, 2011 wherein he was required to indicate by filing an
attestation form under Clause 12 as to whether he was ever been
prosecuted or arrested or detained.
8. In the instant facts and circumstances, when there was an
order of discharge passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction
neither he was said to be prosecuted nor he was arrested and, thus,
the information which was tendered by him in reference to clause
12 of the attestation form filled by him, was not a case of
misrepresentation or of concealment which led to the cancellation of
th
his appointment by the authorities by an Order dated 19
February, 2015.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Division bench has
failed to look into the material aspect of the matter and the finding
which has been recorded of suppression or concealment by the
appellant, which he had intentionally not disclosed in the
attestation form, is not supported by the material on record and
unsustainable in law. In support of submissions, learned counsel
5
has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh
2
Vs. .
Union of India and Others
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while
supporting the finding recorded by the Division Bench, submits
that there is material concealment made by the appellant by not
disclosing the correct facts in his attestation form and particularly,
in clause 12 where he was specifically asked to indicate as to
whether he has ever been arrested or prosecuted and once this fact
stands established from the record that a criminal case was
instituted against him which he had failed to disclose, and that
been the basis for passing the order of cancellation of his order of
th
appointment by an order dated 19 February, 2015, no error was
committed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
judgment which calls for interference of this Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
12. It is not disputed that the date of birth of the appellant in the
th
school records is 15 July, 1985 and he was a juvenile of 12 years
2 2016(8) SCC 471
6
th
when a criminal complaint was instituted against him on 25
October, 1997. The allegation against him was that he had
fraudulently prepared forged caste certificate. How it could have
been possible for a juvenile to prepare a fraudulent caste certificate.
At the stage after the chargesheet came to be filed, the learned trial
Judge, at the very threshold, after recording a finding that there
was no evidence available on record which could attract the alleged
offence for which the complaint had been instituted discharged the
th
appellant by an order dated 15 December, 2001 and the criminal
complaint against him at the given point of time, stood finally
closed for all practical purposes.
13. The attestation form filled by the appellant and clause 12 in
particular and relevant for the purpose is reproduced as under:
ATTESTATION FORM
WARNING
Umesh Chandra Yadav
The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual
information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification, and is likely to
render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
2. If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bond down, fined, convicted, debarred
acquitted etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the
details should be communicated immediately to the. Union Public Service
Commission or the Authority to whom the attestation form has been sent
7
earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression
of factual information.
3. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has
been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to
notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to
be terminated.
| 12.(a) Have you ever been arrested? | Yes/No |
| (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? | Yes/No |
| (c) have you ever been kept under<br>detention? | Yes/No |
| (d) have you ever been bound down? | Yes/No |
| (e) Have you ever been fined by a<br>Court of law? | Yes/No |
14. Later, when the character and antecedent verification
certificate was made by the respondents, the District Magistrate,
th
Gorakhpur by its letter dated 30 December, 2014 informed that
Crime No. 586/98 at one stage was registered against the appellant
but he was discharged by the learned Court of competent
th
jurisdiction by an order dated 15 December, 2001. Still the
authorities, without taking note of the material on record, took a
decision for cancellation of the candidature of the appellant by
th
order dated 19 February, 2015 that became a subject matter of
challenge at the instance of the appellant.
8
15. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intend to
participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct
information relating to his character and antecedents in the
verification/attestation form before or after his induction into
service. At the same time, it is also true that the person who has
suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right
of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same
time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to
be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be
applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties,
impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the
competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and
power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the
given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in
this regard.
16. Earlier there been conflict of opinion in the various decisions
of the Division Bench of this Court, the threeJudge Bench of this
Court in the judgment reported in Avtar Singh (supra), after
9
noticing various decisions of this Court and after detailed
discussions, summarized the conclusions in para 38, the relevant
part is reproduced as under:
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
38.1.
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and
there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation
of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take
notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving
such information.
The employer shall take into consideration the government
38.3.
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time
of taking the decision.
In case there is suppression or false information of
38.4.
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling of the application/verification
form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of
the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning
the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not
trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee.
10
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving
moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
In a case where the employee has made declaration
38.5.
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial
nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such
case.
In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to
38.7.
multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass appropriate order
cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may
not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate
at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and
the appointing authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in
service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before
passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground
of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only
such information which was required to be specifically mentioned
has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in
an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of
11
suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was
not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
17. In the instant case, the appellant was a juvenile when a
th
criminal case was registered against him on 25 October, 1997 and
was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed by the
th
learned trial Judge on 15 December, 2001. This was indisputedly
a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into
consideration by the authority while passing the order of
th
cancellation of his appointment by order dated 19 February 2015.
18. The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, has proceeded
mechanically, without taking note of the fact that a juvenile could
not have been entangled in a criminal complaint instituted against
him in October 1997 and this fact remained unnoticed by the
Division Bench that he was a juvenile when the order of discharge
th
was passed on 15 December, 2001 and almost a decade thereafter,
the process of selection came to be initiated by the respondents
rd
pursuant to an advertisement dated 23 February 2011, the
seriatim of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of
12
information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in any
manner, could be considered to be a suppression of material
information not being bona fidely disclosed in clause 12 of
attestation form filled by him. In this regard, the finding which has
been recorded by the Division Bench in holding that there was a
suppression of material information is unsustainable and deserves
to be set aside.
19. At the first blush, we were not inclined to grant the appellant
consequential benefits as he had not worked after his services came
to be terminated on account of cancellation of appointment dated
th
19 February 2015, but in the present facts and circumstances,
when the appellant was never at fault and no one has afforded him
a reasonable opportunity to justify and, at the same time, the
authorities have also failed to consider that the appellant was a
juvenile on the date when the complaint was made and the date
when he was discharged by the learned trial Judge by an order
th
dated 15 December, 2001, these peculiar facts were not noticed by
the authority while exercising its judicious discretion as to whether
13
the so called alleged suppression at all disentitle the appellant from
continuation of service.
20. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
orders passed by the authority cancelling the order of appointment
th
dated 19 February, 2015, so also the order of the Division Bench
th
of the High Court under the judgment impugned dated 6 May,
2016 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are
directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential
benefits including salary, seniority, etc. Necessary orders shall be
passed by the respondents for his reinstatement within a period of
one month and consequential benefits be paid to the appellant
within a period of two months. No costs.
21. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 02, 2022
14