Nirmala Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

“7.

In the light of the submissions made, this Court as perused Annexure-1 which is a verification form in the light of the Rules 656 & 673 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978 and Rule 673(c) is very much clear which states as follows:-

"(c) Enlistment orders.

The order for enlistments shall then be entered in the order book, the service book shall be prepared and the verification roll despatched to the Superintendent of the district in which the recruits home is situated. The number and date of despatch shall be noted in the proper place in the service-book, and on the return of the roll with a report that the man bears a good character and has made a truthful statement as to his antecedents, the Superintendent shall initial this entry, have the necessary entry made in the service-book and order the verification roll to be filed. If the character of the man is reported to be bad or his statement false, he shall be removed from the force."

8.

It further transpires to this Court that from the record, it is apparent and admitted position that on the date of filing up of the verification form, there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner about which the statement has been made in the verification form that 'no' criminal case is pending and in this view of the matter, it transpires to this Court that the statement of petitioner is false.

9.

So far as the judgment on which the petitioner is relying in case of Avtar Singh (supra), its paragraph no. 30(4) is very much clear and states as follows:-

"(4)

In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-

(a)

In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

(b)

Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

(c)

If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee."

"14.

The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/ verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

In view of aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified."

12.

It also transpires that in paragraph no. 8.8 of the judgement of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Anr. (supra), the said decision of Avtar Singh (supra) has been discussed in this manner which states as follows:-

. "8.8 After reproducing and/or reconsidering para 38.5 of the decision in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], in para 13, this Court observed and held as under: (Abhijit Singh Pawar case [State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 431: (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 420], SCC p. 742)

"13.

In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425], though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate."

13.

After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the relevant rules and the judgments reported by counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent-State, this Court reached on the conclusion that the statement made by the petitioner in the verification form is false and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as per the above facts and circumstances as well as the established law of the land. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.”

“" यया आव व दक कभभी ददांडडिकक् "फफौजदयारभी" यया डसिडवल "दभीवयानभी" मयामलव ममें अडभययुक्त रहया ह ह अथवया कभभी कयारयावयासि भयुगत चयुकभी हह ? डववरण दमें। नहहीं ।क् यया आव व दक ऋणग्रस्त ह हऔर उसिकव डवरूद्ध ककोई ददांडडिक "फफौजदयारभी" यया डसिडवल "दभीवयानभी" मयामलया डवचयारयाधभीन हह? नहहीं । "

“7.

In the light of the submissions made, this Court as perused Annexure-1 which is a verification form in the light of the Rules 656 & 673 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978 and Rule 673(c) is very much clear which states as follows:-

"(c)

Enlistment orders. The order for enlistments shall then be entered in the order book, the service book shall be prepared and the verification roll despatched to the Superintendent of the district in which the recruits home is situated. The number and date of despatch shall be noted in the proper place in the service-book, and on the return of the roll with a report that the man bears a good character and has made a truthful statement as to his antecedents, the Superintendent shall initial this entry, have the necessary entry made in the service-book and order the verification roll to be filed. If the character of the man is reported to be bad or his statement false, he shall be removed from the force."

8.

It further transpires to this Court that from the record, it is apparent and admitted position that on the date of filing up of the verification form, there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner about which the statement has been made in the verification form that 'no' criminal case is pending and in this view of the matter, it transpires to this Court that the statement of petitioner is false.”

"14.

The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/ verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

15.

In view of aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified."

“6.

Proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands, of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the same stated conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process. When an applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it undermines this process by depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of suitability. While the law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities.

7.

We notice that both, the attestation form as also the verification form extracted hereunder, furnish a disclaimer in the following terms:

"1.

Giving any false information in this application or concealing any material information will be treated as disqualification and may render the candidate unfit for Government service."

... ... ...”Disclaimer

2.

Furnishing of false information in the verification form or suppression of any material information will be punishable and the candidate will be ineligible for employment under the Government. After completing and submitting this form, if the candidate is detained, arrested or convicted of any illegal act, find, deported or acquitted of a crime etc., the same should be immediately sent to the authority to whom the verification form was submitted earlier, failing which it will be treated as suppression of material information.

3.

If, any person is found to have concealed any factual information or submitted in correct information in the verification for at any time during his service period, his tenure is liable to be terminated. ... ... ... ”

8.

Despite this clear stipulation as extracted supra the respondent submitted otherwise than the truth which was that there were cases pending against him. The acquittal/dropping of proceedings against him were subsequent developments and at the time of filling up of the forms the investigation in the case was active so also at the time of the affidavit. Since the disclaimer makes it clear that concealment of information would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government service, what is the clincher is the status of the cases as disclosed at the time of filing of the forms. It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, he submitted incorrect and false information.

9.

In urging this Court to look at circumstances in his favour in accordance with Avtar Singh v Union of India. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5.SCC 264 he points out inter-alia his age which is approximately 45, the fact that he gave the affidavit prior to initiation of cancellation of appointment proceedings, the District Magistrate has placed on record his fitness for appointment. We are of the considered view that none of these factors would justify overlooking the fact that at the relevant point in time he concealed the information. There is a maxim in law to the effect that 'juda lex sed lex' which means the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The factum that he said 'no' to pending proceedings against him not once but twice, shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit.”

“6.

In the application form, the applicant, who, as such, applied for the post of a judicial officer was required to disclose certain facts, more particularly, the facts stated in Clause 18 of the Application Form and non-disclosure of true facts and not only that but saying "No" can certainly be said to be suppression of material facts. It was immaterial whether there was a closure report or acquittal or conviction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the particulars which were asked, whether "did you ever figure as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with result. Therefore, the facturn of figuring the name either as an accused or a complainant in any criminal case was required to be disclosed with full particulars and with result. Therefore, the appellant cannot take the plea and/or defence that as a Closure Report was filed in the complaint in which she was the accused, the same was not required to be disclosed. On the basis of the nature of the allegations in the complaint either as an accused or a complainant, it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision whether to appoint such a person or not. What could be considered while actually appointing a person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious decision. The post which was applied by the appellant was a very important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as asked in the application form. If in the application form itself, she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the material facts, what further things can be expected from her after she was appointed as a judicial officer.

7.

From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the case on behalf of the appellant that the services of the appellant could not be put to an end without holding the departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, it is required to be noted that the termination was not on the ground of any misconduct. It was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

8.

Under the circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the High Court cancelling her appointment on the ground of not stating the true and correct facts and/or suppression of material facts. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for”

“18.

... ... In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to apprise both questions of fact and law, but the following dicta of this Court in Umabai & Anr. vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr. [(2005) 6 SCC 243], could not have been ignored by it, whereupon the learned counsel for Respondents relied:-

"It may be, as has been held in Asha Devi vs. Dukhi Sao, (1974) 2 SCC 492 that the power of the appellate court in intra-court appeal is not exactly the same as contained in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure but it is also well known that entertainment of a letters patent appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Even as noticed hereinbefore, a court of first appeal which is the final court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint."