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.