important points
The standard expected of a person intended to serve in a uniformed service is different from other services.
Suppression of material fact disentitles a person to any relief.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Appointment – The standard expected of a person intended to serve in a uniformed service is different from other services – Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English – Appellant, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information – Had such a disclosure been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment – Similarly situated persons had not been appointed – No infirmity in impugned judgment. (Para 10)
       (1996) 11 SCC 605 – Relied upon.
       1988 Supp SCC 795 – Distinguished.
       (b)Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 136 – Having suppressed a material fact, appellant not entitled to any relief. (Para 13)
       Facts of the case:
       Pursuant to or in furtherance of an advertisement dated 29.12.1999 having been issued in that behalf, the appellant filed an application for appointment to the post of Fireman on 05.01.2000. He was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a verification roll.
       It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an incident which occurred on 15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under 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.
       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 an appointment to the post of Fireman. A writ petition preferred thereagainst by the respondent herein was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.
       Findings of the Court:
       Having suppressed a vital information, appellant is not entitled to any relief.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.
       Cases referred:
       1.Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 – Relied upon. [Para 11]
       2.T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp SCC 795 – Distinguished. [Para 12]
       Counsel for the parties :
       Advocates for the Appellant : V. Prabhakar, V. Subramani, Mrs. Revath Raghavan and Ramjee Prasad.
       Advocates for the Respondents : V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian.

judgment

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgments and orders dated 21.01.2004 and 27.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 13357 of 2002 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 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 dismissed for obtaining service under false pretences.

****** ***

15.Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as accused?No

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, give details with C.C. No. and Court.No

*** *** ***

18.Are there any civil or criminal cases pending against you? If so, details.No”

4. It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an incident which occurred on 15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under 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.

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 an appointment to the post of Fireman. A writ petition preferred 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 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 willfully suppressed any material fact warranting denial from appointment in service.

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 he had suppressed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case.

8. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf 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 determining 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 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 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.

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, ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1372

important pointsThe standard expected of a person intended to serve in a uniformed service is different from other services.Suppression of material fact disentitles a person to any relief.

important points
The standard expected of a person intended to serve in a uniformed service is different from other services.
Suppression of material fact disentitles a person to any relief.