Ram Kumar v. State of UP and others, Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs Presiding Officer, Central
Case Details
WA 45/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.K.Goel, C.J.)
Decision
This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dis missing the writ petition of the appellant against cancellation of his candidatu re for the post of RPF/RPSF in Railways. Vide advertisement dated 23.7.2009, vacancies in the post of constables were advertised. The appellant was one of the candidates. He passed the written exam as well as viva voce test. He was provisionally selected and asked to repor t to the office, but on finding that the appellant had suppressed the fact of hi s involvement in a criminal case, his candidature was cancelled. The appellant approached this Court against the impugned order dated 16. 2.2012 with the submission that his medium of education was Hindi and he had ver y little knowledge of English language and, on account of that, he could not giv e proper information. He had already been acquitted in the criminal case on 28.1 0.2009 at the time when he filled up the form, that is, on 1.11.2011. Reliance w as placed on following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - (1) (2) Commissioner of Police and others -Vs.- Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644; Judgment and order dated 19.08.2011 in Civil Appeal No.7106 of 2011 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of UP and others, Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Governme (3) nt Industrial Tribunal and another, AIR 1999 SC 912; and (4) Shri Manni Lal Vs. Shri Parmai Lal and others, 1970 (2) SCC 462. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the contention. It was he ld : As per clause-3 of the attestation form, if any false information is fur (cid:28) 19. nished or there is suppression of any factual information in the attestation for m which comes to notice of the authority at any time during service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated. Clause-12 contained 11 questions, which included the following- (a) (b) Have you ever been arrested ? Have you ever been prosecuted ? (c) Have you ever be en kept under detention ? At the end of clause 12, it was indicated that if the answer to any of t he questions was yes, full particulars of the case / arrest / detention / convic tion / punishment / acquittal etc. as the case may be,had to be furnished. In ca se of the above three questions, the petitioners gave the answer as (cid:28)No (cid:29). The at testation forms were signed by the petitioners with the certificate that the inf ormation furnished was correct and complete to the best of their knowledge and b elief. 20. Petitioners were aspirants for the post of Constable. In other w ords, they were seeking appointment in an uniformed force. They were under a leg al obligation to disclose certain information as indicated above, to which they were privy. All the three petitioners had faced criminal prosecution but were ac quitted by the Court. As per clause 12 of the attestation form, the petitioners were required to furnish details of the criminal case and their acquittal. Inste ad of furnishing such information, petitioners answered the above questions in t he negative, which they certified to be correct and complete to the best of thei r knowledge and belief. Viewed in the above context, the petitioners were not honest in not disc 21. losing the correct facts. In fact, there was suppression of material facts by th e petitioners. In such circumstances, decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature of the petitioners for failure to disclose above information cannot be faulted, more so, when appointment is to a police force. Plea of the petition ers that they did not comprehend fully the various clauses of the attestation fo rm on account of lack of proficiency in English language cannot be accepted as t he attestation form was filled up by them in English language and duly certified to be correct and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the attestation form, partic ularly Column-2, which requires the information of arrest or other similar and c onnected events subsequent to completion of form to be furnished. He submits tha t in view of the said column the appellant was not aware that he was to give inf ormation about such events which may have taken place prior to the application. We are unable to accept this submission. Before Column-2, Column-1 itsel f makes it clear that correct information has to be furnished as required in the form. Column-12 specifically provides that if the person is arrested, prosecut ed, kept under detention, bound down, convicted, debarred, etc., he is to give t he information along with other information. Admittedly, the appellant was involved in criminal case though he was ac quitted after trial. The appellant was seeking appointment to a disciplined forc e and he was under obligation to furnish correct information honestly and, if he had suppressed material facts, his candidature could be cancelled as there was a clear warning to that effect in the form itself. Learned Single Judge has righ tly distinguished the judgments relied upon and instead referred to law laid dow n in -(1) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others -Vs- Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, (2) Secretary, Department of Home, AP and others -Vs- B.Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746; (3) R. Radhakrishnan -Vs- Director General of Police an d others, (2008) 1 SCC 660; and (4) Union of India and others -Vs- Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314, to the effect that suppression of material facts coul d validly lead to cancellation of his candidature. We find that there is no conflict in the decisions relied upon by both t he sides. There is no dispute with the legal proposition that when there is supp ression of material facts, the candidature is liable to be cancelled. In excepti onal mitigating circumstances, particularly where disclosure has been made in on e or the other form, a different view can be taken. The case of the appellant is governed by the general principle as there is unexplained suppression of materi al facts and no exceptional case is made. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the lear ned Single Judge. Dismissed.