Judgment :-

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

At the very threshold, we are confronted with a question as to which of the judgments which have taken conflicting views have to be followed in the matter of termination of a Constable in the Police Department, who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called upon to disclose after his selection was finalized and after order of appointment was issued by placing him on probation.

2. The brief facts of the case are; the appellant applied for the post of Constable pursuant to which he participated in the physical test held in the month of October, 2006. He having cleared the physical test was permitted to appear in the written examination which was held on 5.11.2006. Having come out successful in the written test also, he participated in the interview held in the month of November, 2006. After a subsequent medical examination, the appellant, along with others was declared fit and was sent for training.

3. At the time of consideration of the appellant’s claim, a Declaration Form in the form of an Affidavit was called for in order to ascertain his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case. The appellant submitted the Declaration Form on 10.11.2006 by swearing to an affidavit.

4. In the said affidavit the appellant declared that he has not been convicted by any Court; that no criminal case was registered against him; that no criminal case was pending against him in any Court; that no criminal case was under investigation against him; that he had never been arrested by police in connection with any criminal case; that he was never challaned in any criminal case and that his character was clean and bright. At the end of the declaration, in paragraphs 15-16 he declared that all the information/averments which he made in the affidavit were true and correct and if any information/averment was found to be false or incorrect after his selection on the said post then his selection could be cancelled immediately without giving any notice and he could be removed from the training course.

5. He also fully understood the position that if any of the information/averment in that affidavit was found to be wrong or concealed then he would agree for all the legal proceedings that would be initiated against him.

6. However, it came to light that the appellant was involved in a criminal case for an offence falling under Sections 147,323,336, I.P.C. which was pending in the Court at the time of his selection though subsequently he was acquitted by the competent Court on 04.01.2007.

7. Since the appellant concealed his involvement in a criminal case, the Senior Superintendent of Police passed orders on 27.10.2007 terminating his appointment/ services on that ground.

8. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition (C) No. 21900/2008 and by the impugned order the High Court declined to interfere with the order of termination holding that the appellant deliberately concealed the vital information in order to secure employment and subsequent acquittal would not enure to his benefit. The High Court while reaching upon the above conclusion, relied upon a decision of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav – (2003) 3 SCC 437.

9. Besides the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant while seeking leave to challenge the order impugned placed reliance upon the three other decisions of this Court, namely, Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.- 2010 (2) SCC 169; order dated 19.8.2011 in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. – Civil Appeal No. 7106/2011 and Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar – (2011) 4 SCC 644.

10. Relying upon the above referred decisions, the learned counsel contended that a different view than what has been expressed by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) in the matter of employment in Poli