DEVENDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS.

                     [2013] 8 S.C.R. 471


                    DEVENDRA KUMAR                               A
                              v.
              STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2006)

                       JULY 29, 2013
                                                                 B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

      Service Law - Termination of service - On account of
suppression of the fact of pendency of criminal case - Held:
Where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts C
by playing fraud upon competent authority, such order cannot
be sustained in the eye of law - Material Information sought
by the employer, if not disclosed, would amount to moral
turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement
in -a Criminal case - The services of the appellant rightly D
terminated~

    Maxims:

    'fraus et jus nunguam cohabitant' - Applicability of.
                                                                 E
    'Subia fundamento cedit opus' - Applicability of.

    'Nullus Commodum Capere Petest De lnjuria Sua
Propria' - Applicability of.

   -~ ·, ::"' appellant, who at the time of his appointment as   F
a constabh., submitted on affidavit that he had never
 been involvea ,'..:i a criminal case. The respondent-
authorities in pursuance of the process of character
verification found that the appellant was involved in a
criminal case, in respect whereof, a closure report was          G
submitted by the police and accepted by the Magistrate.
Respondent-authority terminated his services. Single
judge as well as Division Bench of High Court upheld the
termination of service. Hence the present appeal.
                            471                                  H
    472     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A              Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. A writ Court, while exercising its equitable
  jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a
  legal fraud as Courts are obliged to do justice by
  promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to
8
  prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties
  invented to evade law." [Para 12] [480-G-H; 481-A]

        2.1. Where an applicant gets an office by
  misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the
C competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained
  in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
  ecclesiastical or temporal." "Fraud and justice never
  dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant).
  "Misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud", and further
D "fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and
  consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or
  recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood.
  It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which
  he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom
E although the motive from which the representations
  proceeded may not have been bad. Dishonesty should
  not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those
  persons who have frauded or misrepresented
  themselves. In such circumstances, the Court should not
F perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their
  behalf. Suppression of material information and making
  a false statement has a clear bearing on the character
  and antecedent of the employee in relation to his
  continuation in service. [Paras 11, 14, 15, 16 and 18] [480-
G E-F; 481-C, D-G; 483-D]
          S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath
  (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853: 1993 (3) Suppl.
  SCR 422; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs.
  Mis. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151: 1994
H (2) SCC 647; State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Prabhu
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 473
                  ORS.
(1994) 2 SCC 481; Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. Mis. Shaw Bros.     A
AIR 1992 SC 1555: 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 446; United India
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors. AIR
2000 SC 1165: M.P. Mittal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.AIR
1984 SC 1888: 1985 (1) SCR 940; Ram Chandra Singh vs.
Savitri Devi and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4096: 2004 (12) SCC 713;    B
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. vs.
GirdharilalYadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; Union of India and Ors.
vs. M. Bhaskaran AIR 1996 SC 686: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR
526; District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society vs .. M. Tripura Sundari   c
Devi (1990) 3 sec 655: 1990 (2) SCR 559 - relied on.

     Lazarus Estate Ltd~ vs. Besalay 1956 All E.R. 349 -
referred to.

    2.2. In the present case, an FIR was registered           D
against the appellant and others under Sections 402/465/
471 and 120-B IPC. In respect of the same, a closure
report was submitted which was accepted by the
Magistrate. [Para 6] [479-A-B]
                                                              E
    2.3.The High Court has placed reliance on the Govt.
Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the
character of a Government servant, upon first
appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish
information about criminal antecedents of the new
                                                              F
appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made
a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be
discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other
action as may be considered necessary by the
competent authority. [Para 22] [484-B-D]
                                                              G
     2.4. The purpose of seeking such information is not
to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the
ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information
is sought with a view to judge the character and
                                                              H
    474      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue
  in service. Withholding such material information or
  making false representation itself amounts to moral
  turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether
  than what is involved in the criminal case. [Para 22] [484-
8 D-F]

       2.5. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is
  different from suppressing the information of such
  pendency. The case pending against a person might not
  involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this
C information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the
  information sought by the employer if not disclosed as
  required, would definitely amount to suppression of
  material information. In that eventuality, the service
  becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been
D no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/
  discharged. [Para 10] [480-C-E]

        2.6. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance
  with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot
E sanctify the same. "Subia Fundamento cedit opus"- a
  foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A
  person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his
  own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful
  trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim
F Nul/us Commodum Capere Potest De lnjuria Sua Propria
  applies. The persons violating the law cannot be
  permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected
  to inquiry, trial or investigation. Nor can a person claim
  any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex
G lnjuria Non Oritur). [Para 23] [484-F-H; 485-A]

        Union of India vs. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996
    SC 1340: 1996 (3) SCR 785; Lily Thomas vs. Union of India
    and Ors.AIR 2000 SC 1650: 2000 (3) SCR 1081 - relied on.

H         2.7. Clause 4 of proforma affidavit deals with a
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 475
                  ORS.
situation, where a case has been registered, an                A
investigation is conducted and the police have filed a final
report. Though, the person concerned must have
knowledge of the pendency of such an FIR/criminal
complaint. Further, clause 7 requires, in case, a person
has faced criminal prosecution, he has to furnish the          B
information about the result of that trial as to whether the
person has been punished/convicted or acquitted/
discharged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the clauses
tiave to be read together and such information was
required to be furnished only and only if the person- faced    c
the trial and not otherwise. [Paras 7 and 8] [479-E-H]

    State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar AIR 2008
SC 1083: 2008 (1) SCR 281; Secretary, Department of
Home, A.P. and Ors. vs. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC
746: 2005 (1) SCR 1147; R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director D
General of Police and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 578: 2007 (11)
SCR 456; Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary
and Ors. vs. Sushi/ Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605: 1996 (7)
Suppl. SCR 199; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram
Ratan Yadav AIR 2003 SC 1709: 2003 (2) SCR 361; A.P. E
Public Service Commission vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu AIR
2005 SC 4292: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1050 - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422       relied on        Para 11         F

1956 All E.R. 349             referred to      Para 11
1994 (2) sec 647              relied on        Para 12
(1994) 2 sec 481              relied on       Para 12          G
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 446       relied on        Para 13
AIR 2000 SC 1165              relied on       Para 14
1985 (1) SCR 940              relied on       Para 14
                                                               H
    476      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A    2004 (12) sec 113             relied on         Para 15
     (2004) 6 sec 325              relied on         Para 15
     1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526       relied on         Para 16
     1990 (2) SCR 559              relied on         Para 16
B
     1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199       referred to       Para 17
     2003 (2) SCR 361              referred to       Para 18
     2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1050       referred to      Para 18
c
     2008 (1) SCR 281               referred to      Para 19
     2005 (1) SCR 1147              referred to      Para 20
     2007 (11) SCR 456              referred to      Para 21
D     1996 (3) SCR 785              relied on        Para 23
     2000 (3) SCR 1081              relied on        Para 23

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    1155 of 2006 ..
E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2004 of the
    High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Special Appeal No. 16
    of 2003.

          Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma, for the Appellant.
F
          Pankaj K. Singh, Mukesh Verma, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia,
    for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
         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/
H
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 477
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
B) of 2002 vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.8.2003           A
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:                                                                B
      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.           C
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         D
for training of six months on 18.10.2001.

       B. While joining the training, the appellant was asked to
 submit an affidavit giving certain information particularly,
 whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The
                                                                     E
 appellant submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been
 involved in a criminal case. The appellant completed his training
 satisfactorily and it was at this time in January 2002, that the
.respondent authorities in pursuance of the process of character
 verification came to know that the appellant was in fact involved
                                                                     F
 in a criminal case. The final report in that case had been
 submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the learned
 Mctgistrate.

     C. On the basis of the same, the appellant was discharged
abruptly on 8.4.2002 on the ground that since he was a               G
temporary government servant, he could be removed from
service without holding any inquiry.

      D. The appellant challenged the said order by filing a writ
petition and since he was not favoured by the learned single
                                                                     H
    478      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   Judge, he challenged the same before the Division Bench but
    to no avail.

          Hence, this appeal.

       3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
B behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the appellant was
  not aware of any FIR/criminal complaint against him, nor had
  he been interrogated by the police at any stage. Thus, as it was
  not in his knowledge he had not suppressed any information
  regarding the registration of a criminal case against him. Even
C otherwise, he had not concealed any material fact while giving
  information in regard to clause 4 and clause 7 of Proforma of
  Affidavit, which have to be read together. The appellant was
  simply supposed to furnish the said information in 'Nil' with
  respect to whether he had been punished/convicted/discharged
D in any criminal case.

        As in the instant case, only a final report had been
  submitted in case of the appellant under Section 173 of Code
  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
E Cr.P.C.'). So, the question of suppression of material fact could
  not arise as the appellant had neither been punished, nor
  convicted, nor discharged. The matter did not reach the stage
  of trial, hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

       4. On the contrary, Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned
F counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State, has
  submitted that the appellant suppressed the material fact of
  registration of a criminal case against him. Thus, the
  appointment had been obtained by misrepresentation and had
  become void/voidable. Thus, the courts below have correctly
G held the termination as valid. In view thereof, this Court should
  not grant any indulgence to the appellant and, the appeal is
  liable to be dismissed.

       5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
H learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 479
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     6. Facts involved herein remain undisputed. An FIR was           A
registered against the appellant and others under Sections 402/
465/471and120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the IPC'). on 10.2.2001. In respect of the same
a closure report was submitted on 16.2.2001, which was
accepted by the learned Magistrate on 18.8.2001.                      B

      7. Further, clauses 4 and 7 of the Proforma affidavit to be
filled up by every appointee, read as under:

     "4.  That no cognizable or non-cognizable criminal case
     or proceeding has been registered against me to my               C
     knowledge and neither have I been fined by the police in
     any such case and neither is any (police investigation)
     pending against me.

           )()()()(                xx                xx               D
     7. That the details of such criminal cases, which were
     instituted against me in the Court and in which I was
     punished/convicted/discharged, is as given below. If such
     information is nil, then word 'NIL' should be entered."
                                                                      E
      8. The reading of the aforesaid clauses of the said affidavit
makes it clear that both the clauses have to be read in isolation.
Clause 4 deals with a situation, where a case has been
registered, an investigation is conducted and the police have
filed a final report. Though, the person concerned must have          F
knowledge of the pendency of such an FIR/criminal complaint.

     Further, clause 7 requires, in case, a person has faced
criminal prosecution, he has to furnish the information about the
result of that trial as to whether the person has been punished/      G
convicted or acquitted/discharged. Thus, we do not find any
force in the submission made by Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned
counsel for-the appellant, that the clauses have to be read
together and such information was required to be furnished only
and only if the person faced the trial and not otherwise.
                                                                      H
    480      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 8 S.C.R.

A      9. We have examined the judgments of the Division Bench
  as well as of the learned Single Judge, that are based on
  pleadings and evidence placed before them, recording the
  finding that the fact of involvement in the criminal case had
  been suppressed~ No material has been placed before this
B Court on the basis of which we can take a contrary view.

          10: So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by
  misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The
  question is not whether the. applicant is suitable for the post.
C The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from
  suppressing the information of such pendency. The case
  pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but
  suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral
  turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not
  disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression
D of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes
  liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial
  or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.

          11. It is a se_ttled proposition of law that where an applicant
. E gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud
    upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be
    sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
    ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
    (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 1994
  F SC 853. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349,
    the Court observed without equivocation that "no judgment of
    a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has
    been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."

       · 12. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Ml
 G s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State
   of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481, this
   Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its
   equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of .
   a legal fraud as Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion
 H of good faith. "Equity is, also,-known to prevent the law from .
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 481
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law."         A

    13. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. Mis. Shaw Bros., AIR 1992
SC 1555, it has been held as under:-

    ·Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
    proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It       8
    is a, concept descriptive of human conduct.•

    14. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra
Singh & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1165, this. Court observed that
"Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus etjus nunquam      C
cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper
over all these centuries. A similar view has been, reiterated by
this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1984
SC 1888:

    15. In Ram Chandra Singh       v.
                                  Savitri Devi & Ors., AIR D
2004 SC 4096, this Court held that "misrepresentation itself
amounts to fraud", and further held "fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a
man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe   E
and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes
representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues
therefrom although the motive from which the representations
proceeded may not have been bad." The said judgment was
re-considered and approved by this Court in Vice-Chairman,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan · & Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav,        F
(2004) 6 sec 325).
     16. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is
that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and
benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented · G .
themselves. In such circumstances the Court stiould not
perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf.
In Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686,
this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier ·
judgment in District Col/ectorc& Chairman, Vizianagaram H
    482       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 8 S.C.R.


A Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura
  Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under:-

          "/f by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the
          same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court
          of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it
B
          voidable at the option of the employer."

       17. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary &
  Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, this Court
  examined the similar case where the appointment was refused
C on the pc:;t of Police Constable and the Court observed as
  under:

          "It is seen that verification of the character and
          antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether
D         the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the
          State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the
          written test and interview and was provisionally selected,
          on account of his antecedent record, the appointing
          authority found it not desirable to appoint a person
          of such record as a Constable to the disciplined
E
          force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the
          background of the case cannot be said to be
          unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly
          unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of
          his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the
F         criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the
          question. What would be relevant is the conduct or
          character of the candidate to be appointed to a service
          and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result
          happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care
G         of the consequence. The consideration relevant to the
          case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing
          authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and
          found it not desirable to appoint him to the service. "
          (Emphasis added)
H
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 483
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      18. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan                  A
 Yadav, AIR 2003 SC 1709; and A.P. Public Service
Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292,
this Court examined a similar case, wherein, employment had
been obtained by suppressing a material fact at the time of
appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the                   B
employee that the Form was printed in English and he did not
know the language, and therefore, could not understand what
information was sought. This Court held that as he did not
furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the Form,
the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered               c
against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. "The
requirement of filling column Nos. 12 and 13 of the Attestation
Form" was for the purpose of verification of the character and
antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the
Attestation Form. Suppression of material information and
                                                                        0
making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character
and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuation
in service.

      19. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2008
SC 1083, this Court held that there has to be a deliberate and          E
wilful misrepresentation and in case the applicant was not
aware of his involvement in any criminal case or pendency of
any criminal prosecution against him, the situation would be
different.
                                                                        F
     20. In Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. & Ors., v. 8.
Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746, this Court held that facts
are to be examined in each individual case and the candidate
is not supposed to furnish information which is not specifically
required in a case where information sought dealt with prior            G
convictions by a criminal Court. The candidate answered it in
the negative, the court held that it would not amount to
misrepresentation merely because on that date a criminal case
was pending against him. The question specifically required
information only about prior convictions.
                                                                        H
    484     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A        21. In R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police &
    Ors., AIR 2008 SC 578, this Court held that furnishing wrong
    information by the candidate while seeking appointment makes
    him unsuitable for appointment and liable for removal/
    termination if he furnished wrong information when the said
s   information is specifically sought by the appointing authority.

       22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance
  on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification
  of the character of a Government servant, upon first
  appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish
C information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees
  and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement
  in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without
  prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary
  by the competent authority.
D
       The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out
  the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a
  criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to
  judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or
E suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material
  information or making false representation itself amounts to
  moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether
  than what is involved in the criminal case.

       23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with .
F law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same.
  "Subia Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed,
  the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot
  take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to
  frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case
G the legal maxim Nul/us Commodum Capere Potest De lnjuria
  Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be
  permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to
  inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen.
  Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340; and Lily Thomas v.
H Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650).
DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 485
        ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own       A
    wrong doing. (Juri Ex lnjuria Non Oritur).

     24. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that
the appellant suppressed· material information sought by the
employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal     8
case. Suppression of material information sought by the
employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral
turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in
a criminal case.

          In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any        C
    merit and is accordingly dismissed.

K.K.T                                      Appeal dismissed.