JAINENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. HOME & ORS.

                    [2012) 6 S.C.R. 1047


                   JAINENDRA SINGH                                 A
                           v.
     STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. HOME & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 5671 of 2012)
                        JULY 30, 2012
                                                                   B
    [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
                  KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Service Law:
                                                                   c
      Termination - Constable in police department -
Concealing certain relevant facts which he was called upon
 to disclose - At the time of his selection - Termination of his
service after selection finalized and appointment made -
 Whether the termination on the ground of concealment              0
justified - Conflicting views on the issue by various judgments
passed by Division Bench of Supreme Court - Matter referred
 to Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the issue.

       Deth'i Administration Through its Chief Secretary and
  Ors. vs. Sushi/ Kumar 1996 (11) SCC 605: 1996 (7) Suppl.         E
  SCR 199; Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran 1995
  Supp. (4) SCC 100: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526; Regional
  Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt.
  Industrial Tribunal and Anr. 1999 (2) SCC 247; Kendriya
  Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003)          F
  3 SCC 437: 2003 (2) SCR 361; Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy.
. A.P. and Ors. vs. B. Chinnam Naidu 2005 (2) SCC 746: 2005
  (1) SCR 1147; R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of
  Police and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 660: 2007 (11) SCR 456;
  Union of India and Ors. vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (2008) 11        G
  SCC 314: 2008 (8) SCR 99; Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union
  of India and Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 103: 2010 (13) SCR 1076;
 State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. SK. Nazr1,1/ Islam 2011 (1 O)
 SCC 184: 2011 (12) SCR 1033; Commissioner of Police and
                             1047                                  H
    1048    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644:2011 (3) SCR
  964: Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. vs. Dhaval
  Singh 1999 (1) SCC 246; Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of
  Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2010 (2) SCC 169: 2009 (16) SCR
  237; Ram Kumar vs. State of UP. and Ors. Civil Appeal No.
B 7106/2011 decided by Supreme Court on 19.8.2011 -
  referred to.

                        Case Law Reference:
        1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199 Referred to.           Para 17
c       1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526 Referred to.           Para 18
        1999 (2) sec 247           Referred to.        Para 19
        2003 (2) SCR 361           Referred to.        Para 20
D       2005 (1) SCR 1147          Referred to.        Para 21
        2007 (11) SCR 456          Referred to.        Para 22
        2008 (8) SCR 99            Referred to.        Para 23
        2010 (13) SCR 1076         Referred to.        Para 24
E
        2011 (12) SCR 1033         Referred to.        Para 25
        2011 (3) SCR 964           Referred to.        Para 26
        1999 (1) sec 246           Referred to.        Para 26
F
        2009 (16) SCR 237          Referred to.        Para 26

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5671 of 2012.

G        From the Judgment & Order dated 01.12.2010 of the High
    Court of Judicatute at Allahabad Writ Petition (C) No. 21900
    of 2008.

      Vineet Dhanda, Puneet Dhanda, JP Dhanda, Raj Rani
H Dhanda, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Abhijeet Shah for the
  Appellant.
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1049
                    HOME

    Shobha Dikshit, Malvika Trivedi, Anuvrat Sharma, Alka            A
Sinha, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.

    The Order of the Court was delivered

                          ORDER
                                                                     B
    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      C
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.
                                                                     D
     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             E
successful in the written test also, he 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.
                                                                     F
     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.
                                                                     G
     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        H
    1050     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A police in connection with any criminal case; that he was never
  challaned in any criminal case and that his charac,ter 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/
B 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
C 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.

       6. However, it came to light that the appellant was involved
D in a criminal case for .an offence falling under Sections
  147,323,336, LP.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.

E        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
F 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
G enure to his benefit. The High Court while reaching upon the
  above conclusion, relied upon a decision of this Court in
  Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Ors. Vs. Rain Ratan
  Yadav - (2003) 3 sec 437.

        9. Besides the above decision, the learned counsel for the
H
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1051
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

appellant while seeking leave to challenge the order impugned       A
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 Rain
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - Civil Appeal No. 7106/2011
and Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar -             B
c2011) 4 sec 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 Vidya/aya Sangathan Vs.         C
Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) in the matter of employm~nt 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     D
the decision reported in Kendriya Vidya/aya 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   E
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
                                                                    F
the decision reported in Kendriya Vidya/aya 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.
                                                                    G
     13. We have come across the following decisions in which
this Court has taken a similar view which has been propounded
in Kenoriya 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               H
    1052     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A Administration Through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushi/
   Kumar -1996(11) sec 605, Regional Manager, Bank of
   Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal
   & Anoth~r - 1999(2) SCC 247, Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy.,
   A. P. & Ors. Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu - 2005 (2) SCC 746, R.
B Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police & Ors - (2008)
 . 1 SCC 660, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen
   - (2008) 11 sec 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.
c      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
D 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).

E      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- Judges alone. Though in the decisions
  in which the principle laid down in Kendriya Vidya/aya
  Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) has been either
F 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
G 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.

H       16. We feel it appropriate to make a brief reference to the
 JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC.1053
   HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

principles laid down in the various decisions pro and cons in       A
order to pass appropriate orders in this appeal.

     17. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and
Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar (supra); this Co'llrt held:

          "3. It is seen that verification of the character and     B
    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 int~rview and was provisionally selected,
    on account of his antecedent record, the appointing             C
    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   D
    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.       E
    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 aspect and found it not desirable to appoint       F
    him to the service.

                                            (Emphasis added)

     18. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (supra),
this Court held:                                                    G

    "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
                                                                    H
    1054   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A      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
B      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
c      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
D      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
E      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
F      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
G      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
H
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1055
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    continued pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the             A
    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              B
    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)       C

     19. In Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr. (supra), this
Court held:
                                                                    D
           "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
                                                                    E
    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
    conn~ction, he invited our attention to a decision of this
    Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995       F
    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    G
    of the workman or any estoppal against the employer and
    for such misconduct, termination would be justified and
    there was no question of holding any domestic enquiry.

                                                                    H
    1056     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A        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
B
         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 Vidya/aya 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
D       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
E
        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
F       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
G       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
H       Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1057
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

   teacher will have some impact on the minds of the               A
   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 rec6rded a finding of fact in upholding
   the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High       8
   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    c
   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.
                                                                   0
    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
                                                                   E
   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             F
   accepted."

                                           (Emphasis added)

    21. In Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy. A.P. & Ors. Vs.              G
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         H
    1058     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A       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
B       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."
c                                                (Emphasis added)

        Here again m the peculiar facts of the case, this Court
    thought it fit to interfere with the order of termination.

0       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
E 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
F 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 mad~ such
  disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been
  appointed.
G
         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."
H                                                (Emphasis added)
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1059
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    23. In Union of India and Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen-          A
(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
                                                                     B
    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           C
    cannot be tolerated."

                                             (Emphasis .added)

     24. In Daya Shankar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.             0
(supra), all the earlier decisions right from Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary and Ors. Vs. Sushi/ Kumar (supra)
ending with Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen
(supra) including Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram
Ratan Yadav (supra) were considered in detail and the                E
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         F
    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        G
    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             H
    1060    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A       current dubious conduct and absence of character at the
        time of making the declaration, thereby making him
        unsuitable for the post."

                                                  (Emphasis added)
B        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
c       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
D       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.
E
        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.
F
              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
G       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
H       antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is
 JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1061
   HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    suitable for the post of constable and so long as the           A
    candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of
    the charges under Sections 1481323138014271596 /PC,
    he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment
    to the post of constable.·
                                                                    B
                                             (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          C
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         o
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 E
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 F
down in the decision in Delhi Administration Through its Chief
Secretary & Of$. Vs. Sushi! 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. Sushi! Kumar (supra) case. In Commissioner of
Police, Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dhaval Singh (supra) decision it was G
held:

    "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      H
    1062    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A       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
B       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
c       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
D
        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
E       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
F       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,
G       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
H
 JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1063
   HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAUFULLA, J.]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra)             A
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
                                                                     8
    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      C
    any inquiry. The decision dealt with a probationer 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        D
    him.·

                                             (Emphasis added)

      In the said case, the appellant was appointed much earlier     E
and that while he was in service he was prosecuted for
involvement in a criminal case for an offence uls 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,      F
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          G
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
                                                                     H
    1064      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 6 S.C.R.

A        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
8
  ii;i 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
C because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the
  criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his
  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
D 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 unreportea decision in Ram Kumar Vs. State
E of UP. & 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
F 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 ~olice
         Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad,
G        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
H        that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1065
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma     A
    of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered
    against him. As has been stat~d 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     B
    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       c
    authority has mechanically held that his selection was
    irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished
    an affidavit stating the facts incorrect!y at the time of
    recruitment.

    Ultimately the appointing authority was directed to take        D
back the applicant without grant of any back wages.

     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          E
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
                                                                    F
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.                                               G

     (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       H
    1066     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A 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
8 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
C and/or giving 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.

D      (v) 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
E 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.

F         (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.
G         (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,
H
JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR .. PRINL. SEC 1067
  HOME [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable           A
or unsuitable for the post.

    (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      B
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                  C
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        0
us is when ~onsideration of such claim by the candidates who
deliberately suppressed information at the time of recruitment;
can there be different yardsticks· applied iri the matter of grant
of relief.

     33. Though there are very many decisions in support of the        E
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       F
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 BeQch of this Court. Registry is          G
directed to place all the relevant documents before the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.

K.K.T.                                 Referred to larger Bench.

                                                                       H