Holding

Suppression of material information and false statements in the attestation form justify dismissal, and the High Court's setting aside of the Tribunal's order was erroneous.

Summary

The respondent, a Physical Education Teacher appointed to a Kendriya Vidyalaya, filled an attestation form stating that no criminal case was pending against him, despite a case being registered. The employer terminated his services for suppressing material information, a decision upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court set aside the termination, accepting the respondent's claim that his Hindi-medium education prevented him from understanding English terms like "prosecution" and that the case had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court rejected this defence, holding that a graduate with B.A., B.Ed., and M.Ed. could understand the form and could have sought assistance, and that the nature or withdrawal of the case was immaterial to the requirement of truthful disclosure. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the Tribunal's order of dismissal, and affirmed that false statements in attestation forms justify termination.

Issues considered

Whether suppression of material information in an attestation form constitutes a ground for dismissal under the memorandum of appointment.
Whether the respondent's claim of inability to understand English terms due to Hindi-medium education is a valid defence.
Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case or the seriousness of the alleged offences affect the validity of the termination.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal's order of dismissal.
Whether the Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 to restore the Tribunal's order.

Subjects

termination of servicefalse statementattestation formsuppression of material informationteacher appointmentcharacter verificationArticle 136Central Administrative TribunalHigh CourtEnglish language comprehension

Judgment

'\
'

KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SANG ATHAN AND ORS. A
v.
RAM RATAN YADAV

FEBRUARY 26, 2003

B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Service law:

Termination of service-Candidate selected as teacher-Giving false C
information in at(estationform on appointment-False information with regard
to prosecutionfor arry offence and if any case pending qgainst candidate-
Order of termination-Trial Court upholding the order however, High Court
setting aside the same-On appeal held: Suppression of material information
had a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate's
suitability to continue in service for which the information was sought-Also D
the subsequent withdrawal of the court case and the nature of offence not
material thus High Court erred in setting aside the termination order-
Constitution of India-Article 136.

Attestation form-Filling up of-Requirement ofgiving details ofcriminal E
cases-Not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence but for the purpose
of verification of character and antecedents of the candidate.

Respondent was selected fo~ the post of teacher. On getting the
appointment order he filled the attestation form and against a column
seeking information with regard to prosecution by Court for any offence p
and if any case pending against him, respondent stated 'no' even though
criminal case was pending against him. Respondent also certified the
information to be correct and complete. Respondent's services were
terminated as he suppressed factual information in the attestation form.
Respondent filed an application challenging the termination order.
Tribunal dismissed the same. However, High Court allowed the writ G
petition and set aside the termination order holding that the medium of
instruction of the respondent was Hindi and the criminal case had been
withdrawn which was not of serious nature. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant contended that in terms of memorandum containing offer
361
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 2 S.C.R.

A of appointment, respondent was required to file necessary annexures and
attestation forms if he was to accept the offer of appointment; that para
9 of the memorandum shows that suppression of any information will be
considered a major offence for which the punishment may extend to
dismissal from service; that the memorandum terminating services of the
B respondent was issued after proper consideration, taking note of
respondent's statement made in column Nos.12 and 13 of the attestation
form in regard to verification of character and antecedents; that the High
Court commttted a serious error in setting aside the order of the Tribunal
and _was als1> not justified in exercising power of judicial review; that the
respondent having obtained the degrees of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed., it could
C not be accepted that he could l)Ot understand as to what is stated in column
No.12; that the subsequent withdrawal of criminal case or that the offences
were not serious were immaterial; and that the question, whether on the
date when he filed the attestation form, the respondent suppressed the
inforl'.'..ition or made a false statement, was material.

D Respondent contended that the suppression of information was not
deliberate, it was because he could not correctly unc.l.erstand the contents
of column No.12-terms like 'prosecution' and 'conviction'- having studied
in Hindi medium; that for suppression of information respondent could
be dismissed from service but, dismissal from service was not automatic
E and also his case ought to have been considered; that High Court was
justified in setting aside the order of tribunal; and that this Court may
not interfere with the impugned order having regard to nature of the
offences in regard to which a criminal case was filed against respondent
which did not involve any moral turpitude, respondent having been
selected based on qualification and suitability and he having put in one-
F and-a-half years service.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. Assuming that the respondent's medium of instruction
was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study
G English language at all at any stage of his education-B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed
and also his case was not so. If he could understand other columns
correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version
that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns seeking
information. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain
H English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken help
I

~
KENDRIY A VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. R.R. YADAV 363
of somebody. The respondent could not have said "no" as against column A
Nos. 12 & 13 without understanding the contents. The requirement of
filling these columns of the attestation form was not to find out either the
nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately
but was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of
the respondent as on the date of filling the attestation form. Suppression B
of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing
on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his
continuance in service for which information was sought. High Court, has
failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the
criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in
which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of C
serious nature and set aside the order of the tribunal. [368-A-E)

1.2. In the instant case, the respondent was to serve as a Physical
Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and
antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students D
of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects
passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. Tribunal after
due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order
of dismissal passed by the appellants. (369-A-CI

1.3. Respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the E
terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open.
Respondent was informed that the suppression of any information may
lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has
certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the
best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents F
of the columns, he could not certify so. Having certified that the
information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be
accepted. Thus the order of termination of services dearly shows that there
has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the submission
that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was
not automatic and also that this Court may not disturb the impugned order G
exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
cannot be accepted. (369-C-E)

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 247, referred to.
H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3266 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 4191 of 1999.

S. Rajappa, for the Appellants.
B
Prakash Shrivastava, for the. Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. The respondent was selected for the post of
C Physical Education Teacher. An appointment order dated 16.12.1997 was
issued to him. On getting the appointment order, he was required to fill in the
attestation form. As against column no. 12(1) of the said attestation form, he
mentioned "No" despite the fact that a criminal case was pending against him
in the court of law. On the ground of suppression of factual information in
D the attestation form, his services were terminated by the Memorandum dated
7/8.4. I 999. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing 0.A.
No. 1150/99 challenging the said order of termination contendin'g that he had
education in Hindi medium and he is not well-conversant with English words.
As such, he failed to understand the meaning of the word 'prosecution' or
'conviction'. Under the misconceived notion, he did not take note of the
E column no. 12 in the attestation form. He also submitted that whatever was
done by him, was in order to get employment because at the relevant time,
he was undergoing great difficulty. It was his case that the incident took
·place at Raipure Square (Jabalpur) where number of persons were raising
their grievances against the State authorities relating to non-grant of earthquake
F relief; he was not at all part of that mob; while he was passing, a few
demonstrators who were his friends pulled him into the mob; he, all of a
sudden, later learnt that a case has been registered against him under Sections
323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 !PC. The Tribunal dismissed the ·~

O.A. at the admission stage itself observing that "the intention for suppression
and giving false information and the explanation following it that lack of
G knowledge in English resulted in the misunderstanding of the meaning of the
word 'prosecution' does not inspire any confidence in us. In the instant case,
the applicant is a Graduate and a bare look of the Attestation indicates that
the applicant intentionally concealed the facts. The Courts/Tribunals are not
to pat a person on his shoulders in a case where he is making false stati:ment
H to the authorities concerned for obtaining employment. In the circumstances,
\

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. R.R. YADAV [PATIL, J.] 365

we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned memorandum." A
Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the
respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging
the correctness and validity of the same. The Division Bench of the High
Court, after considering the respective contentions urged on behalf of the
parties, allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Tribunal B
and held that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service and entitled to
consequential benefits. In allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed
thus:-

"Non-mention of pending criminal case in column 12(1) of the
attestation form can be for the reasons stated by the petitioner; more C
so when the medium of instructions in this State is primarily Hindi.
That apart, the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved,
has been withdrawn by the State Government. That means, the case
was not serious and involvement of agitators in it was found for
justification, otherwise the case against them would not have been D
withdrawn. That apart, it did not involve moral turpitude disqualifying
the petitioner from seeking the employment."

The present appeal is directed against the said judgment and order of
the High Court made in the writ petition.
E
The learned counsel for the appellants urged that in terms of
memorandum containing offer of appointment dated 16.12.1997, the
respondent was required to file necessary annexures and attestation forms if
he was to accept the offer of appointment as per the terms and conditions
stipulated as stated in para 8 of the said memorandum; para 9 of the said
memorandum itself clearly shows that suppression of any information will be F
considered a major offence for which the punishment may extend to dismissal
from service. He drew our attention, in particular to column no. 12 of the
attestation form dated 26.6.1998; the learned counsel further submitted that
after proper consideration, taking note of his statement made in column nos.
12 and 13 of the attestation form in regard to verification of character and G
antecedents, memorandum dated 7/8.4.1999 terminating services of the
respondent was issued. He contended that the High Court committed a serious
error in setting aside the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the medium
of instruction of the respondent being Hindi and that the criminal case had
been withdrawn which was of not serious nature; the respondent having
obtained the degrees of B.A., _B.Ed. and M.Ed., it could not be accepted that H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 2 S.C.R.

A he could not understand as to what is stated in column no. 12; subsequent
withdrawal of criminal case or that the offences were not serious were
immaterial; the question, whether on the date when he filed the attestation
form, the respondent suppressed the information or made a false statement,
was material. The learned counsel fu11her added that the High Court was not
B justified in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal exercising power
of judicial review; the High Court was also not right in relying upon the case
of Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal and Anr., AIR (1999) SCW 474 which was on the peculiar
facts of that case.

C The learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support of
the impugned order. According to him, suppression of information was not
deliberate; it was because of the respondent not correctly understanding the
contents of column no. 12 having studied in Hindi medium; he could not
understand the terms like 'prosecution' and 'conviction' properly; he urged
that suppression of information could be considered as a major offence for
D which the punishment may extend to dismissal from service as per para 9 of
the memorandum of offer of appointment but, dismissal from service was not
automatic; the appellant ought to have considered the case of the respondent
before terminating his services. According to him, the High Court was right
and justified in setting .aside the order 'of the Tribunal for the reasons stated
E in para 7 of the impugned order. He urged that this Court may not interfere
with the impugned order having regard to nature of the offences in regard to
which a criminal case was filed against the respondent which did not involve
any moral turpitude, the respondent having been selected based on qualification
and suitability and he having put in one and a half years service.

p In order tci appreciate the respective contentions advanced on behalf of
either side, it is necessary and useful to notice the terms of offer of appointment
and the columns contained in the attestation form. Paragraph 8 of the
memorandum containing offer to the extent relevant reads:-

"If he/she accepts the offer on the terms and conditions stipulated, he/
G she would send her acceptance immediately to this office on receipt
of this memorandum and join the Kendriya Vidyalaya mentioned
overleaf. ~ecessary proforma for the purpose in Annexure I to VI
and attestation. forms are enclosed herewith which should be submitted
to the concerned Principal, after getting the same duly completed in
all respects."
H
/
~ \

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. R.R. YADAV (PATIL, J.] 367

Para 9 of the same memorandum is to the following effect: A
"Suppression of any information will be considered a major offence
for which the punishment may extend to dismissal from the service".

The attestation form dated 26.6.1998 duly filled in by the respondent
and attestation show that the respondent has taken B.A. degree from St. B
Alyusius College, JBP and B.Ed and M.Ed. degrees from R. Durgavati
Vishwavidyalaya, JBP. Column nos. 12 and 13 as filled up read thus:-

"12. Have you ever been prosecuted/ kept under detention
or bound down/fined convicted by a Court of Law
of any offence? NO c
I 3. Is any case pending aE;ainst you in any Court of Law at
the time of filing up this attestation form NO"
The respondent has also certified the information given in the said
attestation form as under:- D
"I certify that the foregoing information is correct and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief. I am not aware of any
circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under
Government."
E
· The memorandum dated 7/8.4.1999 terminating the services of the
respondent refers to column nos. 12 and 13 of the attestation form, the criminal
case registered against the respondent on the basis of ihe report given to the
appellants by !GI police, suppression of material information by the respondent
while submitting attestation form and violating the clause stipulated under F
para 9 of the offer of appointment issued to. him, O.M. dated I. 7 .1971 of
Cabinet Secretary, Department of Personnel, New Delhi, in which it is clearly
mentioned that furnishing of false information or suppression of factual
information in the attestation form would be disqualification and is likely to
render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government and that as
per clause 4 of offer of appointment, the respondent was on probation for a G
period of two years and that his services were liable to be terminated by one
month's notice.

It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323,
341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34 !PC was pending on the date when the H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the
respondent as against column nos. 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly suppression
of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the
respondent is holder of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees. Assuming even his
medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that
B he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education .. It is
also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he
could understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it
is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the
contents of column nos. 12 and 13. Even otherwise; ifhe could not correctly
understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have
C certainly taken help of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was
right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court
committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium
of instruction of respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents
of column nos. 12 and 13. It is not the case that column nos. 12 and 13 are
D left blank. The respondent could not have said "no" as against column nos.
12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of
criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in
our opinion, were not material. The requirement offilling column nos. 12 and
13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and
antecedents of the respondent as on the date offilling and attestation of the
E form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has
a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation
to his continuance in service.

The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the
attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain
F and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability tC> continue
in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving
false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer
having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had
discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9
G of the offer of appointment. The purpose ofseeking information as per columns
12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or
the rdult of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns
was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the
respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has
H failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the
~
.KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. R.R. YADAV [PATIL, J.]369
""'
criminal case had been. subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in A
which the respondent was alleged to have been. involved, were also not of
serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical
'~ Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and
antecedent of a ieacher will have some impact on the minds of the students
of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed
the order .of dismissal of the respondent from serv.ice. T_he Tribunal after due
B
consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the, order of
dismissal passed by the appellants. The, High Court was clearly in error in
upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in
taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State. Government and that
the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on c
that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject
to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para
9 of the said memorandum extracted a.hove in clear terms kept the respondent
informed that the suppression of any informa.tion may lead to dismissal from
service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information
D
given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief;
if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could
~
not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct
and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of
services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects.
In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as E
I
per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic,
I
cannot be accepted.

The High Court in passing the impugned order took support of the
judgment of this Court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Anr., [1999] 2 SCC F
24 7]. The very judgment specifically stated, thus:-

" "We make it clear that this order of ours is rendered on the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned earlier and will not
be treated as a precedent in future."
G
It is unfortunate that the High Court treated the said judgment as a
precedent despite this Court's saying that it will not be treated as a precedent
}
in future, while confining the. said judgment to the pec11liar facts and
circumstances of the case.
H
--
--r
·•
ii
A
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R

In view of what is stated above and taking note of the facts and
-
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the
learned counsel for the respondent that this Court may not disturb the impugned
order exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

In our considered view, the impugned judgment and order of the High
B Court cannot be sustained. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored. No
costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

I
\

)