Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3266 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Ram Ratan Yadav
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2003
BENCH:
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.
The respondent was selected for the post of
Physical Education Teacher. An appointment order dated
16.12.1997 was issued to him. On getting the
appointment order, he was required to fill in the
attestation form. As against column no. 12(I) of the
said attestation form, he mentioned "No" despite the
fact that a criminal case was pending against him in
the court of law. On the ground of suppression of
factual information in the attestation form, his
services were terminated by the Memorandum dated
7/8.4.1999. He approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1150/99 challenging the
said order of termination contending that he had
education in Hindi medium and he is not well-conversant
with English words. As such, he failed to understand
the meaning of the word ’prosecution’ or ’conviction’.
Under the misconceived notion, he did not take note of
the column no. 12 in the attestation form. He also
submitted that whatever was done by him, was in order
to get employment because at the relevant time, he was
undergoing great difficulty. It was his case that the
incident took place at Raipure Square (Jabalpur) where
number of persons were raising their grievances against
the State authorities relating to non-grant of
earthquake relief; he was not at all part of that mob;
while he was passing, a few demonstrators who were his
friends pulled him into the mob; he, all of a sudden,
later learnt that a case has been registered against
him under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with
Section 34 IPC. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. at the
admission stage itself observing that "the intention
for suppression and giving false information and the
explanation following it that lack of knowledge in
English resulted in the misunderstanding of the meaning
of the word ’prosecution’ does not inspire any
confidence in us. In the instant case, the applicant
is a Graduate and a bare look of the Attestation
indicates that the applicant intentionally concealed
the facts. The Courts/Tribunals are not to pat a
person on his shoulders in a case where he is making
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
false statement to the authorities concerned for
obtaining employment. In the circumstances, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum."
Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of
the Tribunal, the respondent approached the High Court
by filing a writ petition challenging the correctness
and validity of the same. The Division Bench of the
High Court, after considering the respective
contentions urged on behalf of the parties, allowed the
writ petition, set aside the order passed by the
Tribunal and held that the respondent shall be deemed
to be in service and entitled to consequential
benefits. In allowing the writ petition, the High
Court observed thus:-
"Non-mention of pending criminal case
in column 12(I) of the attestation
form can be for the reasons stated by
the petitioner; more so when the medium
of instructions in this State is
primarily Hindi. That apart, the
criminal case in which the petitioner
was involved, has been withdrawn by the
State Government. That means, the case
was not serious and involvement of
agitators in it was found for
justification, otherwise the case
against them would not have been
withdrawn. That apart, it did not
involve moral turpitude disqualifying
the petitioner from seeking the
employment."
The present appeal is directed against the said
judgment and order of the High Court made in the writ
petition.
The learned counsel for the appellants urged that
in terms of memorandum containing offer of appointment
dated 16.12.1997, the respondent was required to file
necessary annexures and attestation forms if he was to
accept the offer of appointment as per the terms and
conditions stipulated as stated in para 8 of the said
memorandum; para 9 of the said memorandum itself
clearly shows that suppression of any information will
be considered a major offence for which the punishment
may extend to dismissal from service. He drew our
attention, in particular to column no. 12 of the
attestation form dated 26.6.1998; the learned counsel
further submitted that after proper consideration,
taking note of his statement made in column nos. 12 and
13 of the attestation form in regard to verification of
character and antecedents, memorandum dated 7/8.4.1999
terminating services of the respondent was issued. He
contended that the High Court committed a serious error
in setting aside the order of the Tribunal on the
ground that the medium of instruction of the respondent
being Hindi and that the criminal case had been
withdrawn which was of not serious nature; the
respondent having obtained the degrees of B.A., B.Ed.
and M.Ed., it could not be accepted that he could not
understand as to what is stated in column no. 12;
subsequent withdrawal of criminal case or that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
offences were not serious were immaterial; the
question, whether on the date when he filed the
attestation form, the respondent suppressed the
information or made a false statement, was material.
The learned counsel further added that the High Court
was not justified in setting aside the order passed by
the Tribunal exercising power of judicial review; the
High Court was also not right in relying upon the case
or Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr.
(AIR 1999 SCW 474) which was on the peculiar facts of
that case.
The learned counsel for the respondent made
submissions in support of the impugned order.
According to him, suppression of information was not
deliberate; it was because of the respondent not
correctly understanding the contents of column no. 12
having studied in Hindi medium; he could not understand
the terms like ’prosecution’ and ’conviction’ properly;
he urged that suppression of information could be
considered as a major offence for which the punishment
may extend to dismissal from service as per para 9 of
the memorandum of offer of appointment but, dismissal
from service was not automatic; the appellant ought to
have considered the case of the respondent before
terminating his services. According to him, the High
Court was right and justified in setting aside the
order of the Tribunal for the reasons stated in para 7
of the impugned order. He urged that this Court may
not interfere with the impugned order having regard to
nature of the offences in regard to which a criminal
case was filed against the respondent which did not
involve any moral turpitude, the respondent having been
selected based on qualification and suitability and he
having put in one and a half years service.
In order to appreciate the respective contentions
advanced on behalf of either side, it is necessary and
useful to notice the terms of offer of appointment and
the columns contained in the attestation form.
Paragraph 8 of the memorandum containing offer to the
extent relevant reads:-
"If he/she accepts the offer on the
terms and conditions stipulated, he/she
would send her acceptance immediately to
this office on receipt of this
memorandum and join the Kendriya
Vidyalaya mentioned overleaf. Necessary
proforma for the purpose in Annexure I
to VI and attestation forms are enclosed
herewith which should be submitted to
the concerned Principal, after getting
the same duly completed in all
respects."
Para 9 of the same memorandum is to the following
effect:
"Suppression of any information will be
considered a major offence for which the
punishment may extend to dismissal from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
the service".
The attestation form dated 26.6.1998 duly filled
in by the respondent and attestation show that the
respondent has taken B.A. degree from St. Alyusius
College, JBP and B.Ed and M.Ed. degrees from
R.Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, JBP. Column nos. 12 and
13 as filled up read thus:-
"12. Have you ever been prosecuted/
kept under detention or bound
down/fined convicted by a Court
of Law of any offence? NO
13. Is any case pending against you
in any Court of Law at the time
of filing up this attestation form NO"
The respondent has also certified the information
given in the said attestation form as under:-
"I certify that the foregoing
information is correct and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief. I
am not aware of any circumstances which
might impair my fitness for employment
under Government."
The memorandum dated 7/8.4.1999 terminating the
services of the respondent refers to column nos. 12 and
13 of the attestation form, the criminal case
registered against the respondent on the basis of the
report given to the appellants by IGI police,
suppression of material information by the respondent
while submitting attestation form and violating the
clause stipulated under para 9 of the offer of
appointment issued to him, O.M. dated 1.7.1971 of
Cabinet Secretary, Department of Personnel, New Delhi,
in which it is clearly mentioned that furnishing of
false information or suppression of factual information
in the attestation form would be disqualification and
is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment
under the Government and that as per clause 4 of offer
of appointment, the respondent was on probation for a
period of two years and that his services were liable
to be terminated by one month’s notice.
It is not in dispute that a criminal case
registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read
with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the
respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the
information given by the respondent as against column
nos. 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly suppression of
material information and it is also a false statement.
Admittedly, the respondent is holder of B.A., B.Ed. and
M.Ed. degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction
was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he
did not study English language at all at any stage of
his education. It is also not the case of the
respondent that he did not study English at all. If he
could understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same
attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version
that he could not correctly understand the contents of
column nos. 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
correctly understand certain English words, in the
ordinary course he could have certainly taken help of
somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was
right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and
the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting
the contention that because the medium of instruction
of respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the
contents of column nos. 12 and 13. It is not the case
that column nos. 12 and 13 are left blank. The
respondent could not have said "no" as against column
nos. 12 and 13 without understanding the contents.
Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered
against the respondent or the nature of offences, in
our opinion, were not material. The requirement of
filling column nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form
was for the purpose of verification of character and
antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling
and attestation of the form. Suppression of material
information and making a false statement has a clear
bearing on the character and antecedents of the
respondent in relation to his continuance in service.
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
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.
The High Court in passing the impugned order took
support of the judgment of this Court in Regional
Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and another [(1999) 2
SCC 247]. The very judgment specifically stated,
thus:-
"We make it clear that this order of
ours is rendered on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case as
mentioned earlier and will not be
treated as a precedent in future."
It is unfortunate that the High Court treated the
said judgment as a precedent despite this Court’s
saying that it will not be treated as a precedent in
future, while confining the said judgment to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of what is stated above and taking note of
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel
for the respondent that this Court may not disturb the
impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
In our considered view, the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court cannot be sustained. Hence,
the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set
aside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored.
No costs.