RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                        [2011] 10 S.C.R. 506


A                           RAM KUMAR
                                   v.
                      STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011)
                         AUGUST 19, 2011
B
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

        Service Law:

c      Appointment/selection - To the post of police constable
  - Cancellation of the order of selection of the appellant - On
  the ground of his failure to disclose in the affidavit submitted
  to the recruiting authority, in the proforma of verification roll
  about his involvement in a criminal case - Challenged by the
0 appellant  - Writ petition as also appeal dismissed by the High
  Court - On appeal held: Though a criminal case u/ss. 3241
  3231504 /PC was registered aga:nst the appellant but in
  absence of any other witness against the appellant, he was
  acquitted of the charges in the case, four years prior to the
E furnishing of the affidavit - On these facts, it was not possible
  for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant
  was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police
  constable - Appointing Authority instead of considering
  whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post
  of constable, mechanically held that his selection was
F irregular and illegal because the appellant furnished an
  affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment
  - Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and the order
  of the Appointing Authority is quashed.

G        Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v Ram Ratan -
    Yadav (2003) 3 sec 437: 2003 (2) SCR 361-
    distinguished.

      Commissioner of Police and Ors. v Sandeep Kumar
  2011 (3) SCALE 606 - referred to.
H                          506
       RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                     507


                      Case Law Reference:                           A
    2011 (3) SCALE 606         Referred to            Para 4
    2003 (2) SCR 361           Distinguished          Para 10
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                 B
7106 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 31.08.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 924 of
2009.
                                                                    c
    V.K. Shukla, K.K. Mohan for the Appellant.

     Aarohi Bhalla, Ajay Singh, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for
the .Respondents.

    The Order of the Court was delivered by                         D

    A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. This is an appeal against the order dated 31.08.2009
of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special        E
Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellant
against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(C) No.40674 of 2007.

      3. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to ah
advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on F
19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and
he submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2006 to the recruiting
authority in the proforma of verification roll. In the affidavit dated
12.06.2006, he made various statements required for the
purpose of recruitment and in para 4 of the affidavit he stated G
that no criminal case was registered against him. He was
selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed for.
training. Thereafter, the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District
Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007 stating that
Criminal Case No.275/2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC H
    508    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A was registered against the appellant and thereafter the criminal
  case was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial
  Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and the appellant was
  acquitted by the Court. Along with this report, a copy of the
  order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial
B Magistrate was also enclosed. The report dated 15.01.2007
  of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent
  to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. · By order         •
  dated 08.08.2007, the Senior Superintendent of Police,                I
  Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of selection of the appellant on
c the ground that he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts
  and concealing correct facts and his selection was irregular and
  illegal.

        4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.40674 of
  2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad
D High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
  petition by his order dated 30.08.20'J7. The learned Single
  Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false
  information in his affidavit in the proforma verification roll, his
  case ·is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this
E Court in Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
  Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 sec 437] and that he was rightly
  terminated from service without any inquiry. The appellant
  challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special
  Appeal No.924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High
F Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the
  same by the impugned order dated 31.08.2009.

       5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
  appellant had been acquitted by the order dated 18.07.2002
G of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case
  No.275 of 2001 and for this reason when the appellant furnished
  the affidavit dated 12.06.2006 in the prescribed verification roll,
  four years after the order of the acquittal, he did not think it
  necessary to state in the affidavit about this criminal case. He
  submitted that in any case, a copy of the order of the Additional
H Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.275 of 2001
          RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                      509 ·
                  [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
   would show that the crime related to a minor incident which took      A
   place on 02.12.2000 and as there was no evidence against the
   appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the
1 appellant of the charges under Sections 324/34/504 IPC. He
.1 submitted that therefore this is not a fit case in which the
   selection of the appellant should have been cancelled. He cited       B
  Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar
  [2011 (3) SCALE 606] in which this Court has taken a view that
  cancellation of candidature to the post of temporary Head
  Constable for the suppression and failure to disclose in the
  verification roll/application about his involvement in an incident     c
  resulting in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 of the IPC
  when the candidate was a young man, was not justified.

       6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
  supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as
  the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court.            D
  Besides relying on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya
  Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav
  (supra), he also relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
  the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and in particular the Government
  Order dated 28.04.1958 under which a verification had to be            E
  carried out with regard to the character of the candidate who
  was being considered for appointment. He submitted that in
  accordance with the Government instructions in the Government
  Order dated 28.04.1958, candidates desiring appointment to
  various posts in Government service were required to submit            F
  a detailed affidavit furnishing details of their character and
  antecedents.

      7. We have carefully read the Government Order dated
  28.04.1958 on the subject 'Verification of the character and           G
  antecedents of government servants before their first
  appointmenf and it is stated in the Government order that the
  Governor has been pleased to lay down the following
  instructions in supercession of all the previous orders:

       "The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment        H
    510    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A         under the State Government shall continue to be as
          follows:

                The character of a candidate for direct appointment
                must be such as to render him suitable in all
                respects for employment in the service or post to
B
                which he is to be appointed. It would be duty of the
                appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point."

  It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the
  Governor that the object of the verification of the character and
C antecedents of government servants before their first
  appointment is to ensure that the character of a government
  servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable
  in all respects for employment in the service or post to which
  he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the appointing
D authority fo satisfy itself on this point.

       8. In the facts of the present case, we find that though
  Criminal Case No.275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504
  IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant
E Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant
  had been acquitted by order dated 18.07 .2002 by the
  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. On a reading of
  the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial
  Magistrate would show that the sole witness examined before
  the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the
F Court that on 02.12.2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling
  and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar
  amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone
  from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar
  got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and
G that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp
  weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the
  appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the
  appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On
  these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority
H
        RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                       511
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for                 A
appointment to the post of a police constable.

     9. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated
15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior           8
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the
order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether
the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the
post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only
held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular     C
because he did not furnish ir. his affidavit in the proforma of
verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against
him. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing                 D
authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the
appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a
constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and
nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the
appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male             E
constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that
his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant
had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time
of recruitment.
                                                                       F
    10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
Ratan Yadav (supra) relied on by the respondents, a criminal
case had been registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-
B read with Section 34 IPC and was pending against the
respondent in that case and the respondent had suppressed              G
this material in the attestation form. The respondent, however,
contended that the criminal case was subsequently withdrawn
and the offences in which the respondent was alleged to have
been involved were also not of serious nature. On these facts,
this Court held that the respondent was to serve as a Physical         H
    512    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya and he could not be
    suitable for appointment as the character, conduct and
    antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds
    of the students of impressionable age and if the authorities had
    dismissed him from service for suppressing material
8   information in the attestation form, the decision of the authorities
    could not be interfered with by the High Court. The facts of the
    case in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
    Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore materially different from the
    facts of the present case and the decision does not squarely
c   cover the case of the appellant as has been held by the High
    Court.

       11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set
  aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned
  order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the
D appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior
  Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be
  taken back in service within a period of two months from today
  but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he
  has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs.
E
  N.J.                                          Appeal allowed.