TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance on the Govt. Order, 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 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. 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 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. 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 [ 1996 (3) TMI 472 - SUPREME COURT] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India Ors.,[ 2000 (5) TMI 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the same, the appellant was discharged abruptly on 8.4.2002 on the ground that since he was a 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 Judge, he challenged the same before the Division Bench but to no avail. Hence, this appeal. 3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel appearing on 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 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 in any criminal case. As in the instant case, only a final report had been submitted in case of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial as to whether the person has been punished/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. 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 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. 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 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, (2004) 6 SCC 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 themselves. In such circumstances the Court should 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 Collector Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under: If 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 voidable at the option of the employer. 17. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, this Court examined the similar case where the appointment was refused on the post o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AIR 2008 SC 1083, this Court held that there has to be a deliberate and 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. 20. In Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. Ors., v. B. 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 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. 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 information is specifically sought by the appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
