IMPORTANT POINT
Although impugned judgment and order of High Court cannot be sustained but on the facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court did not disturb the order u/A 136 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 136 -Appeal against order of High Court-Verification of character of respondent for post of Physical Education Teacher -Question in attestation form about any pending criminal case-Respondent giving answer in "No" whereas actually criminal case was pending-Services terminated for concealment of vital fact affecting character-Tribunal confirming termination-High Court reversing termination on the view that it was not intentional and held that respondent would be deemed to be in service with consequential benefits relying on 1999(2) SCC 247-Whether correct? (No)-Whether order of the High Court be disturbed? (No)-Appeal allowed accordingly.
       Held : 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 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. (Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15)

JUDGMENT

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 for. As against column No. 12(1) 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 under stand 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 false statement to the authorities concerned for obtaining employment. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum."

2. 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.

3. The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of the High Court made in the writ petition.

4. 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 the 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 237

IMPORTANT POINTAlthough impugned judgment and order of High Court cannot be sustained but on the facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court did not disturb the order u/A 136 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Although impugned judgment and order of High Court cannot be sustained but on the facts and circumstances of the case Supreme Court did not disturb the order u/A 136 of the Constitution.