IMPORTANT POINT
No term in the attestation from, nor any consent given by a government servant, can take away the constitutional safeguard provided to a government servant under Article 311 of constitution.
2. A confirmed government servant is the holder of a civil post entitled to the benefits of the safe guards provided by Article 311 of the constitution. On the other hand, a probationer does not have any sub sanative right to hold the post, and is not entitled to the protection under Article 311.

ORDER

R. V. Raveendran, J.—

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. Appellant was appointed as a Peon in the Water Resources Department (Bansagar Project) in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24.07.1980. Nearly a decade later, on 22.8.1989, the appellant was charge-sheeted in a criminal case for the offences under sections 148, 324/149, 326/149 and 506 IPC. He was acquitted by judgment dated 9.9.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Reva, MP.

3. In the year 1994, the appellant was required to submit an attestation form giving his personal data in regard to his educational qualifications, antecedents etc. He filled up and submitted the said form on 27.10.1994. Column 12 of the said form relevant for our purpose contained three queries. The said queries and appellant’s answers thereto are extracted below:

Sl. No.

12 (a), Have you ever been arrested, No prosecuted, kept under detention or bounded down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any office of debarred/disqualified by any public service commission, from appearing at its examinations/selections or debarred from taking any examination rusticated by any University or any other educational authority institution?

Answer No.

12 (b) Is any case pending against you in Court of law, University of any other educational, authority/institution at the time of filling up this attestation form?

Answer No.

12 (c) If the answer to 12 (a) or 12 (b) is ‘yes’ full particulars of the case, arrest detention, fine, conviction sentence etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/ Educational authority, etc. at the time of filling up this or should be given.

The form also required the appellant to certify that the information given by him in the said form was correct and that if any information was found to be false or incomplete in any material respect, the appointing authority may terminate him from the service without giving notice or showing cause.

4. The Chief Engineer, Bansagar Project (second respondent), referred the attestation form for verification of particulars. After such verification, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Cell, Bhopal, by letter dated 14.7.1995 informed the second respondent that appellant had furnished wrong information in regard to the queries in column 12 of the attestation form. On receipt of such report, no show cause notice or charge sheet was issued to the appellant. The appellant continued to work. Nearly seven years later, abruptly the second respondent issued an office order dated 7.3.2002 terminating the services of appellant forthwith “for giving wrong information and concealment of facts in attestation form at the time of initial recruitment and therefore unfit for Government service”. The appellant challenged his termination. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 11.10.2007, upholding the termination, relying upon the decision of this Court in Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan v. Ram Ra tan Yadav - 2003 (3) SCC 437. The writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on 1.5.2008. Appellant has challenged the said order by this appeal by special leave.

5. The appellant submitted that there was no intentional suppression or misrepresentation in the attestation form. He claims that he has only basic education, that he was given to understand that he should answer the queries in column No.12 with reference to the position as on the date of his appointment in the year 1980 that he therefore answered truthfully all the three queries in column 12 in the negative; and that he did not realise that clauses (b) and (c) of column 12 required him to state the particulars as on the date of filling up of attestation form. He also contended that being a regular confirmed employee, his services could not have been terminated without an enquiry under the relevant service rules, and the termination is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the respondents cont