Case: Shiv Kant Yadav Vs. Indian Oil Corpn.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Indian Oil Corporation (in short theinvited applications from desirous persons by offering advertisements through publication in newspapers to select suitable persons and grant Letter of Intent (in shortto award dealership of SKO/LDO at Jaleshar, Distt. Etah. Appellant and several others applied for the same. The Selection Board scrutinized the applications on 28th and 29th November, 2003. Names of the applicants in order of preference were indicated in the panel of selected candidates, on the basis of which the Corporation proposed to award dealership. They are as follows: (i) appellant- Shiv Kant Yadav; (ii) respondent No.4- Smt. Usha Sharma; and (iii) Hari Om Singh who was not impleaded in the writ petition. Usha and Hari Om Singh filed complaints inter se between themselves against aforesaid selection contending that candidates did not disclose the correct information in their applications and, therefore, were not qualified to get dealership. The Corporation held an inquiry on the basis of the complaint made against the appellant and relying on the report received after inquiry passed the order cancelling the selection of the appellant. Consequently, the Head Office of the Corporation directed the concerned authority to cancel the selection of the appellant and to issue LOI in favour of respondent No. 4 after ensuring that there was no complaint/Court case pending against the proposedorder was challenged by the appellant by filing a writin the Writ Petition took the stand that as per the inquiry report the total income of the appellant had been fixed at Rs.1,64,000/- per annum vis-a-vis Rs. 84,000/- as disclosed in his application form. The discrepancy has no bearing as the eligibility criteria was that the income should not be above rupees two lakhs in the last financial year. The complaint made by Hari Om Singh against Smt. Usha was pending and no LOI could be issued without holding anCorporation took the stand that the Executive Summary report discloses that incorrect information had been given and it has been specifically made clear that any concealment of facts/mis-information would result in rejection of thedecision not to allot the dealership to the appellant was on account of the fact that he did not correctly disclose the income and thus violated his own declaration in his undertaking incorporated in thereference to the application form and the undertaking the High Court held that it was obviously clear that the income was not fully disclosed. The plea that the income was less than rupees two lakhs, did not materially affect the eligibility of the appellant was not accepted and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification 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 continue in service. The employer having regard 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 purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. 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 not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.It is to be noted that the inquiry report relates to S.K. Fertilizers whereas the affidavit alleged to have been filed where reference was made to S.K. Construction has no relevance. It is not in dispute that in the affidavit the appellant had stated about the inheritance of income yielding property.There was a requirement to disclose the true and correct fact which does not appear to have been done.