| CITATION | 2024 INSC 131 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 22nd February 2024 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Ravinder Kumar |
| RESPONDENT | State of U.P & ors |
| BENCH | Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan |
Introduction-
In the present appeal i.e. Ravinder Kumar v/s state of U.P, the Apex Court of India solves the situation when the candidate, who is appellant in the present appeal, conceals material information in his affidavit and the employee which is State of U.P in the present appeal serves cancellation notice to him for his concealment in affidavit. The appellant had applied for the post of constable before the respondent authority but after he applied for the job, the appellant embodied into criminal case and he was acquitted in the said criminal case. When the appellant submitted his sworn affidavit before the respondent authority, he never disclosed this fact that he was charged and acquitted in a criminal case. Hence for the concealment of the said fact, the respondent cancelled his candidature and issued letter of cancellation of employment and the appellant filed writ petition which was decided against him, then he filed appeal before division bench which was also dismissed, hence, present appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 of division bench.
Facts of the case.
- On 12/02/2004, the appellant applied for the post of constable before the respondent authorities.
- That after five days of submitting the said application form, the appellant was embodied into criminal case under section 324, 352 and 504 of IPC on 17/02/2004.
- During the trial of the above said criminal case, the witness (PW1 who was injured) and other witness gave hostile statements and could not identify the accused person before the trial court, hence, the appellant was acquitted in this criminal case vide judgment dated 13/09/2004.
- That the appellant submitted his sworn affidavit before the respondent authorities on 30/10/2004 in prescribed format which was provided by the respondent. Now in para no. 4,5,6,7 and 11, it was clearly asked whether any criminal case is pending or decided by the respondent. But the appellant concealed the above said criminal case and mentioned “NO” for every point. The para no. 4,5,6,7 and 11 of affidavit is mentioned below;
“4. That to the best of my knowledge, no criminal case/matter (cognizable or non-cognizable) has ever been registered against me, nor has the police challaned me in any such criminal case, nor is any police investigation pending against me. NO
5. That I have never been arrested in any criminal case (cognizable or non-cognizable) nor have I ever surrendered in any such criminal case. NO
6. That the details of the criminal cases which have been registered against me or in which I have been challaned or which were/are pending against me in the court or under investigation by the police are as follows (if the information is nil then write ‘zero’)
7. That the details of the criminal cases pending against me in any court and in which I was punished or acquitted or discharged are as follows (if the information is nil then write ‘zero’) ZERO
11. That if anything mentioned in the application is found to be false or the facts are found to be concealed and if I am immediately unconditionally terminated from the Uttar Pradesh Police Service and also given statutory punishment, then it will be acceptable to me.”
- That on 09/12/2004, the police verification report was filed by Police Station, Gauri Bazar, District Deoria stated that while a case in crime no. 95 of 2004 under Sections 324, 352 and 504 IPC was registered against the candidate/appellant.
- That on 10/12/2004, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, after considering report of Police Station, Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, informed the Commandant, 8th Battalion, PAC., Bareilly that in his opinion, the candidate was eligible to do government service under the State Government.
- After all this inquiry, the respondent cancelled the candidature of appellant on 12/04/2005 for concealment of the fact that he was acquitted in criminal case which was based on the report of letter dated 31.12.2004 written on behalf of the Inspector General of Police, PAC to the Commandant, 8th Battalion, PAC.
- That the appellant/petitioner had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39418 of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and challenged the letter of cancellation of selection dated 12/04/2005 with this contention that the concealment was not willful. However, the Hon’able High Court decided this writ petition against the appellant/petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2005 while stating that he suppressed material fact so he is not fit for employment.
- That against the order of Hon’able High Court dated 16/05/2005, the appellant filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 896/2005 before the division bench which was also decided against the appellant and division bench upheld decision of single judge vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2020. The division bench held that the appellant/candidate who has filed false affidavit at the time of enrolment is not fit for candidature. Hence, the appellant filed the present instant appeal before this court.
Questions for consideration;
- Whether it was justified to cancel the selection of the appellant, vide its order of 12.04.2005?
- To what relief, if any, is the appellant entitled to?
Contentions of the appellant-
The appellant contented that at the time of submission of the application form, no criminal case was registered against the appellant and after that the appellant was embodied in above said criminal case. However, at the time of submission of the affidavit i.e. on 30/10/2004, the appellant was already acquitted in the said criminal case on 13/09/2004. The appellant was in bonafide believe that he has to mention pending cases only. Hence, the concealment of acquittal of appellant in his affidavit was neither intentional nor willful.
Contentions of the respondent-
That the respondent contended that it is a clear concealment of acquittal of appellant in criminal case and the appellant intentionally concealed the said information and gave false affidavit. The respondent contended that it was clearly asked in the said affidavit about any criminal case pending or decided against the candidate/appellant. It is also pertinent to mention here that in para no. 7 of affidavit as mentioned above, it has been clearly asked for acquittal of candidate in criminal case but the appellant intentionally replied ZERO for that part which clearly shows the malafide intention and concealment of the appellant.
Findings of Hon’ble Apex Court-
The Apex Court decided this case on the basis of case Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) and Avtar Singh (Supra) in which it has been clearly laid down that although the person suppressed material fact cannot claim right for employment, however, he or she has the right not to dealt arbitrarily. The Hon’ble held that although the candidate suppressed material facts but while judging the ability of incumbent, nature of post, nature duties and effect of suppression of fact over ability or suitability is to be considered and the employer can have lenient opinion before cancelling the candidature of the candidate but no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard.
Decision and conclusion-
The Apex Court sets aside the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2020 of division bench and allowed the present appeal. The order of 12.04.2005 of cancellation of employment is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected. The appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force. At the same time, the court directs that the appellant will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.
References-
Indian kanoon-
This article is written by Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate, graduated from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Intern at LegalVidiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments