RAVINDRA KUMAR   [Appellant (s)]  Vs.  STATE OF U.P. & ORS.  [Respondent(s)]

(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5902 OF 2012)

(2JB, J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan JJ., delivered by K.V. Viswanathan, J.)

Facts: The Appellant, being aggrieved by the Judgement of Ld. Single Judge, filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 896/2005. The Division Bench, vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2020, dismissed the Special Appeal holding that if a person swears a false affidavit at the time of enrolment, he is not fit to be enrolled in the disciplined service. It was further held that the act of swearing false affidavit on its own, is an act, which touches upon the conduct and character of the person. The suppression of the material information from the employer does not get vindicated by the subsequent acquittal in the case. Moreover, the appointing authority was not required to go into the details of the allegations in the criminal case, the evidence led in the trial and the reasons for which the criminal court had convicted or acquitted the candidate. The Appellant, being aggrieved of the Judgment dated 29.10.2010, is before the present court in the instant appeal.

Issue: Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant, vide its order of 12.04.2005?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Mr. Premashis Choudhary, learned advocate for the appellant, contended that there was no willful concealment; that at the time of submitting of the application form on 12.02.2004, there was no criminal case pending against the appellant; and at that stage there was no requirement to furnish any affidavit. The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on 13.09.2004 i.e. much prior to the filing of his affidavit on 30.10.2004. Since no criminal case was pending at the time of filing of affidavit, the appellant was under a bona fide belief that there was no requirement to disclose. It is further contended that as such there was no intention to deceive.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Standing Counsel for the State have contended that the appellant made a false representation in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of his Affidavit. Further, along with the appellant, two other persons, who were found to have been given false statements, have also been visited with the cancellation. Moreover, the present case is covered in favour of the State, by the judgment of this Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly, para 38.1, 38.2, 38.3 and 38.11 thereof.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non- disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.”