Back
B.S.CHAUHAN, S.A.BOBDE
Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttaranchal – Respondent
Key Points: - The suppression of material fact regarding pendency of a criminal case amounts to moral turpitude and justifies termination of employment, even if there is no final conviction (or trial) yet. (!) - Providing an affidavit falsely stating no criminal involvement, and suppressing information about a criminal case, can lead to termination of service as a result of misrepresentation; fraud vitiates appointment and is not protected by law. (!) (!) - Verification of character and antecedents is an important criterion for suitability to a post; antecedent conduct can justify non-appointment or termination even if the eventual conviction outcome is acquittal or discharge. (!) (!) - Fraud and suppression of information in employment proceedings are considered separate from the underlying criminal case and are treated as independent grounds to terminate or void employment. (!) (!) - The employer’s information request is intended to assess character and suitability; withholding or false furnishing constitutes moral turpitude and can justify dismissal. (!) - General principle: employment obtained by fraud cannot be sustained; it renders the appointment voidable at the option of the employer. (!) - The court reaffirmed that suppression of information about criminal antecedents is a grounds for termination even if the pendency or outcome of the criminal case does not involve moral turpitude by itself. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.5.2004 in Special Appeal No. 16 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal. The order affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 278 (S/B) of 2002 vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 by which and wherein, the order of termination of service of the appellant by the respondent authorities had been upheld.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. An advertisement was published in September 2001 inviting applications from candidates eligible for the 250 posts of Constables in the State of Uttaranchal. The appellant applied in response to the same vide application dated 7.9.2001. He appeared for the physical test and qualified on 28.9.2001. Subsequently, upon passing the written test, the appellant faced an interview in September, 2001 and, ultimately his name was mentioned in the list of selected candidates published on 30.9.2001. The appellant was called for medical examination on 4/5.10.2001, by which he was found fit. Thus, he was sent for training of six months on 18.10.2001.
B. Wh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
