2010 Supreme(SC) 623

2010 (5) Supreme 596
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R V Raveendran and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Manoj Kumar — Appellant
versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5999 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.5439/2010]
Decided on : 26-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
If any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withholds or conceals any material information in his application, he will be debarred from securing employment. Even if such an applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information.

Headnote:Service Law- CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965- Rule 5(1)-Termination of services of appellant for showing his date of birth wrongly as 8.9.1988, instead of 8.11.1989, in his application for employment- Appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging termination - Tribunal dismissed his application - Review application filed by appellant was also dismissed by Tribunal - Writ petition thereagainst –Dismissed by High Court –Appeal- The records of School, where appellant studied in the sixth standard showed his date of birth as 8.9.1988- Therefore that date was not something that was created for the purpose of securing employment- Matriculation certificate issued by Board of School Education, Haryana,to appellant’s sister showed her date of birth as 23.11.1989- Obviously therefore the appellant’s date of birth shown as 8.11.1989 in his matriculation certificate, was erroneous- He was pursuing his request for correction of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate and also filed a suit for correction of his date of birth- The Civil Court decreed the suit and Board of School Education accepted the decision and corrected date of birth- If all the facts and circumstances were taken note of, it was evident that appellant’s date of birth was 8.9.1988 and not 8.11.1989- The appellant was all along making efforts to get the date of birth corrected and in fact, got it corrected- This was not a case where a wrong date was given to have a longer period of service and thereafter an attempt to justify it- There was obviously a mistake in the date of birth and the Haryana School Education Board corrected it- The explanation offered by the appellant with supporting documents, was not considered either by respondents 3 and 4, or by Tribunal and High Court- They ignored relevant material and decided against appellant only because matriculation certificate as it stood at time of employment application was different from date given in application for employment-While the matriculation certificate is a strong material, other equally relevant material cannot be ignored, particularly when the matriculate certificate has been corrected-Hence held that termination could not be sustained-Impugned order of High Court, orders of CAT and order of termination set aside- Appeal allowed. (Paras 8 to 10)

       Facts of the Case :

       Services of appellant were terminated herein in the instant case for showing his date of birth wrongly as 8.9.1988, instead of 8.11.1989, in his application for employment. Appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging termination. Tribunal dismissed his application. Review application filed by appellant was also dismissed by Tribunal. Writ petition filed thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       If all the facts and circumstances were taken note of, it was evident that appellant’s date of birth was 8.9.1988 and not 8.11.1989. The appellant was all along making efforts to get the date of birth corrected and in fact, got it corrected. This was not a case where a wrong date was given to have a longer period of service and thereafter an attempt to justify it. There was obviously a mistake in the date of birth and the Haryana School Education Board corrected it. The explanation offered by the appellant with supporting documents, was not considered either by respondents 3 and 4, or by Tribunal and High Court. They ignored relevant material and decided against appellant only because matriculation certificate as it stood at time of employment application was different from date given in application for employment,. While the matriculation certificate is a strong material, other equally relevant material cannot be ignored, particularly when the matriculate certificate has been corrected. Hence held that termination could not be sustained. Impugned order of High Court, orders of CAT and order of termination was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.