Holding

The appellant's suppression of a material fact—his involvement in a pending criminal case—constitutes a false statement, justifying denial of appointment and precluding any equitable relief.

Summary

R. Radhakrishnan applied for the post of Fireman and, after provisional selection, submitted a verification roll stating he had never been involved in any criminal case. In fact, he had been arrested under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code for an incident on 15 April 2000, though he was later acquitted on 25 September 2000. The authorities rejected his appointment on the ground that he had made a false statement by omitting the pending case. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed his appointment, but the High Court set aside that order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the omission was a material falsehood, that acquittal does not erase the duty of disclosure, and that no equitable jurisdiction could be invoked in his favour. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the denial of appointment upheld.

Issues considered

Whether non‑disclosure of a pending criminal case, later resulting in acquittal, constitutes a material false statement in a verification roll for a uniformed service appointment.
Whether the duty of candour in a verification roll can be excused on the basis of subsequent acquittal.
Whether the court can exercise equitable jurisdiction to favor the appellant despite the suppression of material facts.
Whether the higher standard of conduct expected of candidates for uniformed services justifies denial of appointment for such non‑disclosure.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294(b)

Subjects

service lawverification rollnon‑disclosurecriminal caseacquittalappointmentuniformed serviceequitable jurisdictionIndian Penal Code

Judgment

A
--< - ~-
R. RADHAKRISHNAN
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service Law: ~

c Appointment of Fireman-Provisionally selected candidate
required to disclose in verification roll if he had been involved in
criminal case and non-disclosure would render him liable to dismissal-
Non-disclosure by selectee on the pretext that he was ultimately
acquitted-Selection not made-Challenge against-Held: He was
D rightly not selected as he suppressed materialfacts-In such situation,
question of exercising equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not
arise-Equity.

The appellant filed an application for the post of Fireman on
E 5.1.2000. He was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a
verification roll. The venfication roll contemplated that in case the
statement furnished by the selectee is found false, it would render him
liable to dismissal. In the clauses as to whether selectee has been
concerned in any criminal case as accused, or whether any Civil or
F criminal cases pending against him or whether had been arre!;ted or
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay fine in any
~~
criminal or other offence, the appellant had answered in negative.

He however, was involved in an incident which occurred on
15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under Section 294(b) of the
G Indian Penal Code. He was arrested but was released on bail. He was
acquitted of the said charge on 25.09.2000. He was not selected on the
premise that he had made false statement in his verification roll, in ,k,
regard to the pendency of the aforementioned case.

H 456
.......

R. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 457
OF POLICE
...... -·....,.
He filed OA before Administrative Tribunal which was allowed on A
the ground that as he had been acquitted in the criminal case and hence
there did not exist any reason denying appointment to the post of
Fireman. The employer-respondent successfully filed writ petition
before the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
B,
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
.#'
HELD: 1. Indisputably, Appellant intended to obtain appointment
-~
in a uniformed senrice. The standard expected of a person intended to

- senre in such a senrice is different from the one of a person who intended
to senre other senrices. Application for appointment and the verification
roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and
c
understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a
vital information. The fact that in the event such a 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 D
persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly
situated had not been appointed. [Para 10] [457-B, C]

2. The appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this
nature, question ofexercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favourwould E
not arise. [Para 13] [461-B]

TS Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vila-am Sarabhai Space Centre
and Ors., [1988] Supp SCC 795, distinguished.
Delhi Administration through its ChiefSecretmy and Ors. v. Sushi! F
~r Kumar, (1996] 11 SCC 605, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4874 of
2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2004 of the High G
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 13357/2002.
,r .....
WITH
C.A. No. 4875/2007
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
-< - ..-
A V. Prabhakar, V. Subramani, Revathy Raghavan and Ramjee Prasad ""
for the Appellant.
R. Venkatramani,V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabhu
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. .....
--<
2. Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgments and orders

c
dated 21.01.2004 and 27.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras in Writ Petition No. 13357of2002 and R.A. No. 68 of 2005
..
respectively, is before us.
3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of an advertisement dated
29.12.1999 having been issued in that behalf, the appellant filed an
D application for appointment to the post of Fireman on 05.01.2000. He
was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a verification roll, the
relevant part whereof reads as under: +
"I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement which has been
made by me is found to be false, I shall render myself liable to be
E dismissed for obtaining service under false pretences.
*** *** ***
15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as
accused? No
F
16. Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to -., _
undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence?
If so, No
give details with C.C. No. and Court.
G
*** *** ***
18. Are there any civil or criminal cases pending against you? If
so, details. No"

H 4. It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an
j
R. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 459
OF POLICE [SINHA, J.]
incident which occurred on 15 .04 .2000, and was proceeded against under A
Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested but was
released on bail. He, however, was acquitted of the said charge on
25.09.2000. Inter alia on the premise that he had made false statement
in his verification roll, in regard to the pendency of the aforementioned
case, he was not selected. B
5. He filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by reason of a judgment
and order dated 4.03.2002 opined that as he had been acquitted in the
criminal case, there did not exist any reason as to why he should be denied C
an appointment to the post of Fireman. A writ petition preferred 1

thereagainst by the respondent herein was allowed by reason of the
impugned judgment.
6. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, in support of this appeal, raised a short question, viz., having D
4 regard to the fact that the appellant signed the application prior to the
date when the alleged accident took place and also stood acquitted when
he filled up the verification roll, he cannot be said to have wilfully
suppressed any material fact warranting denial from appointment in service.
E
7. The learned counsel would contend that in a case of this nature,
the High Court ought to have taken a sympathetic view and should not
have allowed the writ petition of the respondent only on the ground that 1

he had suppressed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case.
8. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf F
of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that bona fide or
otherwise on the part of the appellant cannot be a criteria for detennining
the issue. The learned counsel submitted that had the relevant fact, viz.,
involvement in a criminal case and that too a cognizable offence under
Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, been disclosed, the appointing 0
authority could have verified his character and suitability for appointment.
It was pointed out that the persons similarly situated against whom criminal
cases had been instituted had not been selected.
9. The learned counsel furthermore submitted that in view of the fact B
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A that the appellant knew that he would be liable to be dismissed in service
if the statement made in the verification roll was found to be false cannot
now be heard to say that he omitted to mention the pendency of the
criminal case under a bona fide belief or otherwise.

B
10. Indisputably, Appellant intended to obtain appointment in a
uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve
in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to
serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll
were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood
C the implication ofhis statement or omission to disclose a vital information.
The fact that in the event such a 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 made
such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.
D 11. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi
Administration through its ChiefSecretary and Ors v. Sushi! Kumar,
[1996] 11 sec 605 wherein it was categorically held:
"3 ... The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application
E on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/
or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC,
under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section
324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post
under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the
F Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important crite1ia 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 interview
and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent
G record, the appointing 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 .... "

12. Mr. Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S
H
'
f
R. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 461
OF POLICE [SINHA, J.]
Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre pnd A
Ors., [1988] Supp SCC 795. The said decision has been rendered, as
would be evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and
circumstances of the said case and cannot be treated to be a binding
precedent.
B
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.
14. For the reasons aforementioned., there is no merit in these '

appeals which are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and C
circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.

-- J''