Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Chander Sain vs Commissioner Of Police on 5 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3917/2010 This the 5th day of April 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Chander Sain r/o Vill & PO Tumna Tehsil Kosli Distt. Rewari (Haryana) 123302 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police PHQ, MSO Building IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment) New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri B.N.P. Pathak) O R D E R
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this O.A. thereby praying for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure A-1) and the final order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure A-2) vide which the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police was cancelled with immediate effect. The applicant has further prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider his candidature and offer an appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male, with consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement to fill up 6141 vacancies for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police, which was published in leading newspapers on 20.2.2009 by giving 10% reservation to ex-serviceman candidate in each category as well as reservation to SC/ST/OBC candidates as per rules. The applicant being one of the eligible candidates submitted an application for the said post. He applied for the post and after qualifying the written test as well as physical test, he was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking documents etc. He was declared fit, but consequent upon the verification and character antecedents of the applicant, it was found that he was involved in criminal case FIR No.51 dated 17.3.2000 under Sections 323/324/34 IPC, PS Kosli, District, Rewari (Haryana). However, the criminal case was decided by the Court and the applicant was acquitted vide order dated 28.2.2009 as both the parties had compromised the matter amicably. Since the applicant did not disclose the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in the relevant column of application form and attestation form and concealed the facts deliberately despite clear warning at the top of the application form, he was issued a show cause notice as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the applicant submitted his reply dated 2.7.2010 (Annexure A-5) stating that criminal case culminated into acquittal as the disputes were settled and compromised among the parties due to intervention of Panchayat and Lok Adalat. It is further stated that the application form for the post of Constable in Delhi Police was filled up on or around 31.3.2009 while the attestation form was filled up on 23.10.2009 as such both the forms have been filled up after the acquittal order. It is also stated that since he was already acquitted and false implication in the said criminal case had no adverse effect on his army service, he did not mention it under a bonafide belief that the same is not required to be mentioned in either of the forms of Delhi Police. Thus, according to the applicant, non-mentioning of the aforesaid facts cannot be presumed to be deliberate or that there has been any malafide intention or deceitful means, which have been adopted by the applicant. In nutshell, the defence taken by the applicant was that non-mentioning of the aforesaid facts in relevant columns in the application as well as attestation forms was an inadvertent error under a mistaken but bonafide belief. The applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble High Court in CWP No.12565/2004 and requested that the show cause notice against him may be withdrawn and he be given appointment as Constable (Executive) Male, with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents after considering the reply of the applicant have passed a detailed impugned order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure A-2) and it was observed that the pleas put forth by the applicant in his reply have been considered and found not convincing. It is further stated that the applicant filled up the application form for the post of Constable (Executive) on 31.3.2009 and column 15 (a) to (e) of the application form requires criminal proceeding details but he put a tick mark as no in the relevant box and also left the column 16 of the said form blank, which requires to give full particulars of the case FIR No. Dated under Sections, Police Stations, District, and present Status of the Case at the time of filling-up this application form. While filling up the attestation form in column No.11 (kha), the applicant has mentioned that nahi, mere virudh koi FIR darj nahi hui hai and concealed the facts of involvement in the above said criminal case, despite clear warning given on the application and attestation form that furnishing of any false information or concealing any fact will be treated as disqualification. Based upon these reasoning, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled with immediate effect. Challenging the aforesaid action, the applicant has filed the present OA with aforementioned reliefs.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed. The respondents have defended this case on the basis of reasoning given in the impugned order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. We are of the firm view that the matter is squarely covered by the recent decision of this Tribunal in Shri Doonga Ram Dhaka v. GNCT of Delhi & another (OA-3972/2010) decided on 31.3.2011, which decision was passed based upon the decision of this Tribunal in Jai Singh v. GNCT of Delhi & another (OA-3216/2010) decided on 25.3.2011 pertaining to the same selection whereby the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the similar grounds, i.e., suppression of the factual information in columns 15 (a) to (e) and 16 of the application form and column 11 (kha) of the attestation form. This Tribunal, after noticing the defence, which was taken by the applicants (Jai Singh and Doonga Ram Dhaka, has made the following observations, which, thus, read:
7 At this stage, it will be useful to quote paragraphs 7 to 16 of the decision of this Tribunal in Jai Singhs case (supra), which, thus, read:
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of provisions contained in Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2000, the involvement of the applicant in criminal case is of no consequence and the said fact cannot be taken to be a disqualification for any purpose whatsoever. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant. We are of the firm view that the applicant cannot take any assistance from Section 19 of the said Act inasmuch as the applicant has not been convicted by the Juvenile Court, rather he has been acquitted. Further, the candidature of the applicant has not been cancelled on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case but his candidature has been cancelled on the ground of suppression of material information relating to verification of character and antecedents. Thus, the reliance placed by the respondents to the judgment, referred to above, is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. That apart, the matter is also squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 SCC (L&S) 306 and subsequent decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Sukhen Chandra Das, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 911. Before adverting to these decisions of the Honble Apex Court, we may notice the relevant columns of the application form, which the applicant has filled up while applying for the aforesaid post and which has been annexed with the OA as Annexure A-4, i.e., page 32 of the paper book. The application form for the recruitment of Constable (Executive-Male) in Delhi Police contained a warning at the top of the form, which is to the following effect:-
Warning Furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the application form would be a disqualification for the job.
8. The applicant filled up the application form on 17.3.2009. The queries raised in columns 15 & 16 of the form and answer thereto, relevant for our purpose, are extracted below:-
SL.No. Query Answer 15 (a) Whether any FIR or criminal case has ever been registered against you No
(b) Whether any FIR or criminal case is pending against you in any Court of Law, or with police at the time of submitting the application present? No
(c) Have you ever been arrested or detained in any criminal case(s)? No
(d) Have you ever been tried & convicted by a Court of Law in any criminal case(s)? No
(e) Have you ever been tried and convicted by the court by filling any bond for good behavior etc. No
16. Case Reference: If the answer to any of the above mentioned questions is Yes then give full particulars of the case FIR No. Dated Under Sections, Police Stations, District, and Present Status of the Case at time of filling-up this application form Blank
9. The form also required the applicant to give declaration, which reads as under:-
18. Declaration: I hereby declare and confirm that all the entries in this application are correct. I undertake that, in case any information furnished by me is found to be false or material information concealed by me, my candidature may be cancelled at all my claims for the recruitment will stand forfeited.
10. As can be seen from the impugned order, in the attestation form for verification and character antecedents filled on 15.10.2009 against column 11 (kha) of the said attestation form, the applicant has mentioned nahi, mere virudh koi FIR darj nahi hai, although the said form has not been placed on record. Further, the impugned order also reveals that the attestation form also contained the similar warning as in the application form to the effect that furnishing of false information or concealing any fact in the application will be treated as disqualification.
11. It may be stated that in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), the respondent therein submitted an attestation form dated 26.6.1998, wherein he answered two of the queries thus:
"12. Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence? - 'No' ;
13. Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? - 'No'."
On the said attestation form being referred for verification, it was found that the information furnished by him was false and that a criminal case under section 323, 341, 294 and 506-B read with section 34 IPC was pending against him. He was therefore terminated from service, by the Sangathan, by memorandum dated 7.4.1999/8.4.1999, as being unfit for employment. The Tribunal upheld the termination. The High Court set aside his termination on the ground that the criminal case against him was subsequently withdrawn by the Government and the offences alleged did not involve any moral turpitude so as to disqualify him for employment. The said decision was reversed by the Honble Apex Court.
12. The Honble Apex Court has also held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information under clauses 12 and 13 of the attestation form was to assess his character and antecedents for continuation in service; that suppres-sion of material information and making a false statement in reply to queries (12) and (13) had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of a person employed as a teacher in a school; and therefore the employer was justified in termi-nating his service during the period of probation. The Honble Apex Court did not accept Yadav's claim that he did not understand the contents of the questions which were in En-glish, as it found that the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact, after; examination of the record, that Yadav was highly qualified and was aware of the significance and meaning of the said queries, and had deliberately entered false responses.
13. It was also pointed out by the Honble Apex Court that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who sup-presses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer.
14. Therefore, the ratio decidendi of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) is where an employee (probationer) is required to give his personal data in an attestation form in connec-tion with his appointment (either at the time of or thereafter), if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from ser-vice during the period of probation without holding any inquiry.
15. Thus, in view of the law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), the services of an employee can be terminated on ground of suppression of material information regarding verification of character and antecedents and nature of gravity of offence and ultimately result of the criminal case is not the relevant consideration. According to us, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadavs case (supra). Similar view was also taken by the Honble Apex Court in Sukhen Chandra Dass case (supra), which was a case where the services of the respondent before the Honble Apex Court were terminated under the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 when factum of pendency of case came to the notice of the Department at the time of verification of character antecedents. It may be stated that Sukhen Chandra Das furnished wrong information in the form relating to verification of character and antecedents, despite warning given in the form itself that wrong information would result in termination of service. The respondent therein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, who vide order dated 1.8.2001 held that the order of termination of the respondent was passed on alleged misconduct and the same could not be treated as an order simpliciter covered by the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the respondent, however, reserved liberty to the appellants to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent for alleged misconduct. The writ petition filed before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. As such, the matter was carried to the Honble Apex Court and the Apex Court relying upon the clause 1.12 (a) of Central Reserve Police Force Recruitment Manual, 1975 as well as sub-para (d) of the said Manual, 1975, which prescribed, if a person is adversely reported upon in the attestation form by the local authorities, his services will be terminated by giving him one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof under CRPF Rule 16 read with Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, held that services of such employee could have been terminated as per the provisions contained under CRPF Rule 16 read Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 even without issuing the show cause notice.
16. We may also notice another decision of the Honble Apex Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & others v. Sushil Kumar, 1997 SCC (L&S) 492, although it is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the candidature of the applicant herein has been cancelled on account of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application form as well as in the attestation form. The Honble Apex Court in the said case has held that the discharge of acquittal of a person under criminal offence has nothing to do with denial of appointment to him on the ground of undesirability based upon the antecedents of candidates. That was not a case of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application/attestation form but was a case where the appointment was denied to the respondent before the Honble Apex Court on account of his antecedents record where he was involved in a criminal case but acquitted by the competent court. That was a case where the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90. 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 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. Feeling aggrieved, he filed OA in the Tribunal. The Tribunal 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, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The Honble Apex Court held that 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, the 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 focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.
17. Thus, viewing the matter from the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for our interference. The OA is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
8. Thus, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the aforementioned case based upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court, which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, except that the defence of the applicant in this OA and in Jai Singhs case (supra) was slightly different, we are of the view that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. It may be stated that the candidature of the applicant has not been cancelled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 447/341 IPC but the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled on the ground that he has suppressed the material facts of his being involved in a criminal case in the application as well as attestation form submitted by him for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, which has bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post.
9. At this stage, we also wish to refer to another decision of the Honble Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & others, 2010 (2) SCALE 477 whereby the Honble Apex Court after considering its earlier judgment and noticing the purpose of seeking the information relating to the pendency of the case, etc. in the application form/attestation form held that the purpose of seeking the said information is to ascertain character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the questions in the relevant Columns truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed security service and, thus, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, the Honble Apex Court has held as under:-
9. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to any of the following consequences:-
(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honorably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.
10. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment:
(i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from college etc.; and
(ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post.
10. The principle, as culled out in paragraph 9 (c) of the said judgment, as reproduced above, is fully attracted in the instant case. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that after his conviction in a criminal case when subsequently he was acquitted by granting benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act he has served with the Indian Army is of no consequence, as this ground of his employment in the Army after he was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in criminal case qua suppression of material information and making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal case is a distinct ground, which shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post, as observed in paragraph 10 of the said judgment.
6. Thus, according to us, the matter is squarely covered by the reasoning given by this Tribunal in Doonga Ram Dhakas case (supra) based upon the earlier decision of this Tribunal in Jai Singhs case (supra).
7. At this stage, we may also notice the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties in the present case. While drawing our attention to the reply to the show cause notice (Annexure A-5) wherein the defence taken by the applicant was that non-mentioning the facts in the aforesaid columns was an inadvertent error under mistaken but bonafide belief that he stood already acquitted in the criminal case on 28.2.2009 whereas the application and attestation forms were filled subsequently, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the respondents have not considered his defence in right perspective while passing the impugned order at Annexure A-2. The submission made by the learned counsel for applicant deserves outright rejection, inasmuch as the respondents have discussed the defence taken by the applicant in paragraph 3 of the order and it is only thereafter the competent authority has held that the pleas put forth by the applicant have been considered and found not convincing. It has further been recorded that he filled up the application form on 31.3.2009 and Column No.15 (a) to (e) requires criminal proceedings details but the applicant put tick mark against No and also left the column No.16 of the said form blank, which clearly requires to give full particulars of the case under section, police station and present status of the case at the time of filling up the application form. It has further been recorded that in column No.11 (kha) of the attestation form, the applicant had clearly mentioned that Nahi, mere virudh koi FIR darj nahi hai and did not mention the fact regarding involvement in the aforesaid criminal case despite clear warning given on these forms that furnishing of any false information will be treated as disqualification. It was after noticing the defence of the applicant and recording the aforesaid reasoning that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled.
8. In exercise of power of judicial review, it is not permissible for us to substitute the finding recorded by the competent authority whereby taking note of the defence of the applicant and after taking into consideration the entries made in the relevant columns of the application and attestation forms and also taking into consideration the warning recorded in the said form, the respondents have come to the conclusion that the applicant has submitted a false information by adopting deceitful means.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.12565/2004, which decision has been approved by the Honble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police & others v. Sandeep Kumar (Civil Appeal No.1430/2007) decided on 17.3.2011 and argued that he is also entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), as approved by the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1430/2007.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Arun Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (W.P. (C) No.161/2011) decided on 17.1.2011, which decision is based upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & others, 2010 (2) SCALE 477. The Honble High Court while taking note of the said decision of the Honble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition. At this stage, it would be useful to quote paragraph 8 of the said case, which, thus, reads:
8. We note that in Daya Shankar Yadavs case the Supreme Court held that suppressing relevant information i.e. concealing facts and giving false information fall in separate categories. On facts it may be noted that in Daya Shankar Yadavs case, he had been acquitted but was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 323/504/506 IPC PS Bahariya and had given information in the negative. The Supreme Court held that while seeking public employment anyone who withholds relevant information and suppresses the truth by giving incorrect information would not be entitled to public employment.
11. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, as rendered in Daya Shankar Yadavs case (supra), which has been also noticed in the earlier part of this order and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in C.A.No.1430/2007.
12. It may be relevant to state here that in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav, the Honble Apex Court has categorically held that the purpose of seeking the information is to ascertain character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the questions in the relevant Columns truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself, would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed security service and has also culled out certain principles in paragraph 9 of the judgment. For the purpose of discharging of service of the probationer or perspective employee, which can form basis for refusing the employment, the Honble Apex Court in the said case has also categorically stated that the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in the reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence is distinct ground, which shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post. The Apex Court after taking note of the information submitted by the appellant before it on facts held that the appellant had knowingly made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case and, therefore, the employer was justified in dispensing with his services for not being truthful in giving material information regarding his antecedents, which were relevant for employment in a uniformed service. It may be further stated that the judgment was rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra) after noticing its various earlier decisions and it was thereafter that the Apex Court has culled out certain principles in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment, which have been reproduced in earlier part of this order.
13. If one has regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of the High Court of Delhi and while upholding the decision of the High Court had made an observation after noticing the observations made by Lord Denning and observed as under:
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.
At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
14. Thus, as can be seen from the portion quoted above, it cannot be said that the Apex Court has given a declaration of law that the factum of furnishing a false information or suppression of any material information in the application form has to be condoned and is not the relevant factor to reject the candidature of the applicant on this ground and that gravity of criminal offence is a relevant factor, which should also be taken into consideration while rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground of furnishing of false information in the application/attestation forms, despite warning to the effect that the candidature of the applicant can be rejected on the ground of furnishing of wrong information, which may entail cancellation of the candidature and also signing the false declaration thereby undertaking that in case any information furnished by the person is found to be false or material information is concealed, as submitted by him, the candidature may be canceled and also the claim for recruitment stands forfeited. That apart, the Honble Apex Court while dismissing the said Civil Appeal in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has not taken note of the previous judgments rendered by it and declaration of the law laid down by the Apex Court, more particularly, the ratio decidendi of the decision in Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) whereby the Apex Court has held that where an employee is required to give his personal data in an attestation form in connection with his appointment (either at the time of or thereafter) and if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. Thus, in view of the declaration of the law, as laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), which has been subsequently followed in number of decisions and recently in Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), we are of the view that the applicant cannot take any assistance from the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra). As such, we are inclined to follow the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav (supra).
15. At this stage, we may also notice another contention put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & others, 2000 LAB I.C. 1885 wherein it has been held that once a person has been acquitted of the criminal charge, it has to be deemed that he was never involved in any criminal case and such acquittal would operate retrospectively and cancellation of the offer of selection on the ground that he did not mention the said fact in the relevant form is of no consequence. Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned order and mandamus was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Mazdoor.
16. We have also given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for applicant based upon this decision and we are of the view that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be said to be a good law in view of the subsequent decisions rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 SCC (L&S) 306 as well as Sukhen Chandra Das, (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 911, which have been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment.
17. Accordingly, the OA being bereft of any merit is dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/