NM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Dr. Anil Padmakar Choum Versus Stats of MP. & others W POST ON 5MAUGUST. 2010 ' dra ailéan Shriva‘it’ava ‘Man\mii I 7'5 Judge Writ Petition 1S‘ No.3762l2005 ORDER 7 a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HQN’BLE $HRI MANENDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Writ Petition tSl No.376212005 PETIT10 ER Dr. Anil Padmakar Choure Versus ' i ilwl jV/Iw RESPOKDENTS State of M.P. & others Appearance: Shri Vijay K. Deshumkh, counsel for the petitioner. Shz'i Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State] respondent No.4. None for other respondents. O R D E R (Passed on 5‘ .0820 10) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality alad validity of decision taken by respondent/State denying appointment of the petitioner as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, communicated by impugned communication No.F-3-25/2000/35(1) undated, issued by U§nder Secretaiy, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Madhya Pradesh. : 2; Facts necessaiy for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in response to advertisement inviting applications by the Madhya Pradésh Public Service Commission. Petitioner was interviewed on 5'11 January, 2000, which followed publication of select list in Newspapa — A4). such incidents could not be taken— appointliient to fhc petitioner when he up so seriousbr as t0 deny was found meritorious and fit Rojgar Aur Nirman (Annexurc ‘/ m y petitioxmr had honestly admitted and disclosed complete details regarding earlier criminal case and 5&1 View of the fact that the case was dually Closed and the petitioner was disoharged, the Home Depaxment of the Government vide iis letter (Annexure A~9) recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment, therefore, denial of ap illegal, arbitrary and unfair. . On. the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that upon selection of the petitioner, the petitioner was I required to fill-up an Attestation Form and disclose Various details] w information honestly Without any suppression. While filling-up the said form, as against information sought under Column—12 (”cE} 8r, (a), ‘i petitioner simply Wrote “NA.” i.e. ‘not applicable’, which was a clear as it is admitted fact that a criminal case was case of suppression, . registered and the petitioner was subjected to trial before the criminal Court. During the course of character verification through police, this fact was disclosed and, therefore, the petitioner was found unsuitable for public employment. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact. The opening Words of AttEstation Form under the heading “Warning” clearly stated that if any material fact is suppressed. or incorrect information is given, the same would be treated as disqiiaiiiication and such person may be held unsuitable, for employment under the State. Learned counsel for the respondent—State also argued that it is not material that ultimately the petitioner was discharged of criminal case, but what is material is that the petitioner suppressed material information and, therefore, respondents were fully‘justified in holding the petitioner unsuitable pomtment is G/w mbg Hamsmwbm 8 wwwog» EB mm <Q8Enm§~ >wmwmSH:mdamnoF $EOW Wm gnome nHbEoEwba. .0. a“HananooSwEQdQ man Hw<mp mEvBwmmwowm Ewmn E~ Egan ooshmmw woa 9n wmhmamwbawngmnm Bun 809d? N > GmHn waazmmw 0», >$aw5¢oh wog A>bbaxcan m‘wvawn mHobm $Ep awn Rag, sxEE wroé 9m» E 00335 ZonHm Away mm Am?wwnomwo $5 owmnmoio Ewogmaow gumm mo¢w~§E 3Hwo§m 39d? SN E ggi§§iw.§%gA aggmgEgwggigwwwiwE g$§§gw$ngA§§§w§ ggigmmwggggguwwwgq iiaw$$§§ma§mwm3§m §$\§%%ig§%$§ ggwggaggwggg g§w§m§£§$§&% §\%agi%%§nw$£§g ggggww Ev §§§I§%£§g§ §.§§Eg%&m§§g\%a wag$m§m§wN~HWg§$m§Evw @ii%§m»§‘§.m%w%£§m£ étgi g g a. i. g<£££ ‘%%§§%%%%m&m§% %:m£&£.i§§§\\E§E§\&m§ anwmms%&§m mag mwm % g 3% § § .§§%§§§%& §%%Q%T AQV§m\§q Amdmgwzwamg? REVa$§w§£wmggg$ §§%_ 3d i§§§m§§§§ §£E§§_ addggmdm g g . m (9:) wWwWW? W) W#&€E§mwwq®a%mmmm émwam” In responw to those quexy under column 12 (E5) &. (G), all that petitioxmr disclosed was “NA.” meaning ‘not applicable’. . It is not in dioputz that a criminal casa under Crime Number 179[84 was registered against the petitioner along with other acouseé persons in police station Kishanganj, Indore, alleging commission of oEences under Sections 336/341, 147, 148, 149, 447 &'427 of the IPC and a charge sheet was f1led in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahu, District-Indore: Petitioner was then prosecuted under Cximinal Case No.1284/84, though, the same was finally decided vide order dated 17.1.1989 and the State withdrew the I prosecution and the petitioner and other accused persons were discharged. 9. The reason assigned in imnugned communication (Annexure A- 12) is that upon police verification an adverse report was received, and therefore,, the petitioner cannot be appointed. In the return, respondents have stated that the reason for not giving appointment to the petitioner is that he suppressed material fact while filling—up the Attestation Form (Annexure R—3). The Attestation Form in its opening words contained warning, which is in Clause —I thereof under the heading {Chemwanf’ . The same is reproduced as below:— 3 x um“ (1) m—mamwwmmmw mamméetmamaqwzma 8 i exception can be taken to the same. A public employment under the State, requires acandidate at least to be honest in disclosing material information sought in the Attestation Form. Petitioner is a medical graduate and not a rustic villager. He fully knew the consequences, The t deliberate attempt. to withhold relevant information could be made a valid basis for respondents to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable for public employment. The mere fact that petitioner had been subsequently discharged in the criminal case will WWIW¢§1W$E®H$§ yw1§a€w1 WWLH§$WW: w? I" 10, The petitioner is a medical graduate and. in fact earlier he had taken up Govemment employment and left the service. It is difficult for this Court to accept that by mistake, the petitioner ceuld not give that mformation. ,r It is I10t that the petitioner by inadvertent mistake could not fill—up Column -12 (E5) 85 (1E). In fact the petitioner has responded to those column by writing “NA.” which means ‘not applicable’, therefore: the petitioner vely consciously, knowing fully well, that he was prosecuted in the past, suppressed this information and is therefore, guilty of Suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Petitioner fully knew the consequences of such suppression as was clearly stated in the heading “Warning” in the Attestation Form. The Attestation Form was filled—up by the petitioner on 27. 12.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner participated in the intewiew. All these circumstances unmistakably point out that there was a deliberate suppression by the petitioner. {t . If the respondents have denied appointment to petitioner holding him unsuitable for the reason that he suppressed material information, no not m any way absolve him of‘his liability to filled—in the Attestation Form cormctly and accurately. 12. Matter relating to validity of action of either refusal of appointment or terminatioo of service, in such a circumstance, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in catena of decisiohs. It is now well settled that denial of appointment in such cases where relevant and material information has been deliberatebi suppressed, is fully justined and not liable to be inferred with. 13. In the case of Delhi Administration, throggg its Chief Secretarg as 01's. Vs. Sushi! Kumarl, it was held as under: “3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tzibunal, New Delhi made on 6—9—1§95 in OA No. 1756 of 1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989—90 with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local ‘5‘ police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggn'eved .by proceedings dated 18—12—1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he died OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The ‘ Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and] or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be M 'i 1(1996] 11 scc 605 denied the right of appointment to the post under'the Stain The question is Whsthsr the vicw taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seon that veriflcation of the chamcter and antecedents is one of the important cn'ten'a to test whether the seiected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was yrovisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The View taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case'cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, me law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the Candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.” -mh WM rI Later on, in the case of Kendtiva Vidvalaya Sangathan 85 Ors. Vs. § Ram Ratan Yadavz, dealing with a similar situation— suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents and consequent termination of service, it was held by the Supreme Court, as under : “11. It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506~B read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the respondent 2 (2003) 3 437 . filled the attestation form. Hence, thé information given by tho respondent as against columns 12 and 13 as “No” is plainly suppression of material information a11d it is also a false statement Admittedly, the respondent is holder of BA, BEd and MEd degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he could understand columns 1—11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is ditiicult to accept his version that he could not correctly undeistand the contents of columns 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinaxy course he Could have certainly taken the help of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instruction of the respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13.. It is’not the case that columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said “No” as against columns 12 and ‘13 without understanding the contents. Subseguent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were not material. The requirement offilling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification 70f character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date offilling and attestation of the form Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a dear bearing an the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. W -10- 12. The oBject of requiring information in colunms 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certiiication thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot Claim right to conn’nue in service. The employer having regani to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The puipose ofseeking irformation as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find’out either the nature o'r gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimteiy. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or 15. In yet another case of A.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors.3, relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan (supra), upholding cancellation of candidature by the Public Service Commission, it was held as under “5..”Learned counsel for the appellant Commission relied on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav and contended that when information with regard to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is intended to Verify and cross-check the information so that the suitability of the candidate for employment could be judged. If the candidate indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed, all the more so, if he is to be employed in public employment If the information as to the full particulars of employment was available with the Commission, the 3 (2005) 7 scc 177 : w? ' Commission could have checkad the antecedents of the first respondent with his 6mployer and ascertained the suitability of'the &st respondent for employment. In any event, it had beeli made clear to the candidates, both in the advertisement calling for applications as well as in the body of the application itself that furnishing of false information or its suppression was liable to result in cancellation of the candidatuie.”. 16. The above principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police & Ors‘4 ; as below: “10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is . diderent from the one of a person who intended to serve other services, Application for appointment and the veriiication roll Vvere both in Hindias also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verined his character as also suitability of the appointment isnot in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature we are of the opinion that question of exercrsmg an equitable ’Junsdictlon 1n his favour would not arise " 17. In a recent decision, in the case of vnion of India and Ors. Vs. Bipad Bhanian Gayen5 , after considering earlier decision in the case of A.P. 4 2007 AIR SC'W 7595 5 2008 AIR SCW 4058 _12- WW Public Service Cpmmission (supra), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) 85 R. Radhakrishnan (supra) upholding action of termination on the ground of withholding relevant information, the Supreme Oomt held as under: “8. We mid that the observations in the above cited case are fully applicable to the present matter as well. We are of the opinion that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to withhold relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period. The question of any penal consequences or a reading of the principles of natural justice in such a situation cannot be countenanced. The mere fact that the respondent has been subsequently discharged in the criminal cases will not in any way absolve him of his liability to have filled in the attestation form correctly and accurately as on the date he had done so.”... .. 18. In View of the aforesaid discussions and applying the well settled principles applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of appointment on the ground that the petitioner suppressed material information and, therefore, unsuitable for public employment, cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. > 19. In the result, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. Praveen Sdl- ’Maningra Mohan Shrivasava. i, r w Judge t