SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1130

2010 (14) SCC 103
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
Daya Shankar Yadav
Versus
Union of India & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9913 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.16989 of 2006]
Decided on : 24-11-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:S.R. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Bimal Roy Jad, Vikram Rathore, B.K. Khurana, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ms. Nidhi Tewari, Shailendra Sharma, S.N. Terdal, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Appointment – Verification Roll/Form – Personal information – Not divulging an earlier prosecution – Suppression of material fact – Ultimate acquittal or discharge is immaterial – On the other hand non-furnishing of material information due to absence of clarifying the question or due to the candidate not being aware of the said information, is not suppressing material information or making false statements. (Para 6, 7)

       (1996) 11 SCC 605; (2003) 3 SCC 437; (2008) 1 SCC 660; (2008) 11 SCC 314; (2005) 2 SCC 746; (2008) 3 SCC 222 – Relied upon

       (b) Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 – Rule 14 – Verification Roll – Clause 12(a) and (b) of English version ambiguous – Organisations should use clear and simple questions and avoid any variations between the English and Hindi versions. (Para 13, 14)

       (c) Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 – Rule 14 – Verification Roll – Clause 12(a) and (b) – Questions in Hindi quite clear, no ambiguity – Appellant answering in Hindi – Thus knowingly making false statement that he was not prosecuted – Prosecution is different from conviction – Later discharge irrelevant – Termination justified. (Para 16)

       

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. Rule 14(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 required every newly recruited employee to furnish factual information about himself. In view of it, the appellant was required to fill up and sign a Verification Roll (form), which he did.

       The said form was referred to the Police for verification, who reported that Crime case No.67/1997 had been registered against the appellant in the Police Station, Bahariya, for offences punishable under sections 323/504/506 IPC and that the court had however discharged him on 17.1.2001, after trial.

       In view of the said report, the fifth respondent (Addl. Dy.IG, CRPF, Allahabad), after asking show cause, terminated the services of the appellant.

       The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in termination.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 12.6.2003. Rule 14(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 required every newly recruited employee to furnish factual information about himself. In view of it, the appellant was required to fill up and sign a Verification Roll (for short `the form'), which he did on 6.7.2004. The form starts with the following warnings : "1. The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the government. 2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. 3. If the fact that the false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated." Queries 12(a) and (b) in the form relating to the antecedents of the employee are extracted below : "(). , ( - 0 / 5 07 0 / ! "12.(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/restricted by any University or any other education authority/Institution ? (). 5 /07 ? () () ' >' , , , ( , - @ B ( / /5 !" (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is `yes' then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/University/Education authority at the time of filling in this form." The appellant answered both these questions in the negative by writing `Nahin' (i.e. `no'). The form was filled in Hindi, a language understood by the appellant.

3. The said form was referred to the Police for verification, who reported that Crime case No.67/1997 had been registered against the appellant in the Police Station, Bahariya, for offences punishable under sections 323/504/506 IPC and that the court had however discharged him on 17.1.2001, after trial.

4. In view of the said report, the fifth respondent (Addl. Dy.IG,CRPF, Allahabad) issued a notice dated 27.5.2005 alleging that the appellant had given false information in the verification form by concealing facts and called upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The appellant sent a reply dated 4.6.2005 stating that the relevant clause in the verification form required him to disclose whether any criminal case registered against him was pending before any court and whether he had been convicted by any court; and that as he was discharged in the criminal case and as no case was pending against him before any court or authority, and as he was never sent to jail, he had answered the relevant query in the negative and that he had not misrepresented or suppressed any fact nor given false information.

5. By order dated 25.6.2005, the fifth respondent terminated the services of the appellant under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Lucknow (third respondent herein), by order dated 23.9.2005. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order of termination which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top