# AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 7 S.C.R. 445
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Bench:** RANJAN GOGOi, Arun Mishra, Prafulla C. Pant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/avtar-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-31621
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

SERVICE LAW.·
Appointment - Verification of antecedents - Importance of -
Quashing of appointment or dismissal from service on account of
supp:-ession of information or submission of false information in
the verification as to question of having been criminally prosecuted,
arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case - Held: Information
given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal
or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether- before or
after entering into service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required information - In case there
is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling 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: In a case trivial i:7 nature
in which conviction had been recorded, which if disclosed would
not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
empbyer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or
false information by condoning the lapse - Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may
cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee - 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
daub: 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 - In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false
information by itself will assume significance and an emplcyer may
445
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating
services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.
Appointment - Declaration of employee as to concluded
criminal case - Held: Where the employee has made declaration
B
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the
right . to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate.
Appointment - Declaration of employee as to pendency of
criminal case - Held: In case when fact has been truthfully declared
C
in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the
case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision
of such case.
Termination of employee on the ground of misrepresentation
D
or supp,.ession of material information in the verification - Held:
E
F
G
H
Merely because there is a power to terminate services or cancellation
of offer of appointment, it does not follow that a person should be
removed outrightly - Various aspects have to be considered and the
discretion so used should not be arbitrary or fanciful - It has to be
guided on certain principles for which purpose verification is
sought.
Termination of confirmed employee on the ground of
misrepresentation or suppression of material information in the
verification - Held: The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a
transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the
basis of forged documents, the incumbent may be terminated wilhout
holding any inquiry - However in case employee is confirmed,
holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311 (2), due
inquiry has to be held before terminating the services.
Verification form - Held: For determining suppression or false
information, the attestation/verification form has to be specific,
not vague - Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed - If information not asked
for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in

## Text

_Characters 0–39,877 of 112,351. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39877 for what follows._

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 445
AVTAR SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20525of2011)
JULY21,2016
[RANJAN GOGOi, ARUN MISHRA AND
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.)
SERVICE LAW.·
Appointment - Verification of antecedents - Importance of -
Quashing of appointment or dismissal from service on account of
supp:-ession of information or submission of false information in
the verification as to question of having been criminally prosecuted,
arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case - Held: Information
given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal
or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether- before or
after entering into service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required information - In case there
is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal
case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling 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: In a case trivial i:7 nature
in which conviction had been recorded, which if disclosed would
not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
empbyer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or
false information by condoning the lapse - Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may
cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee - 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
daub: 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 - In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false
information by itself will assume significance and an emplcyer may
445
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating
services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.
Appointment - Declaration of employee as to concluded
criminal case - Held: Where the employee has made declaration
B
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the
right . to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate.
Appointment - Declaration of employee as to pendency of
criminal case - Held: In case when fact has been truthfully declared
C
in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the
case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision
of such case.
Termination of employee on the ground of misrepresentation
D
or supp,.ession of material information in the verification - Held:
E
F
G
H
Merely because there is a power to terminate services or cancellation
of offer of appointment, it does not follow that a person should be
removed outrightly - Various aspects have to be considered and the
discretion so used should not be arbitrary or fanciful - It has to be
guided on certain principles for which purpose verification is
sought.
Termination of confirmed employee on the ground of
misrepresentation or suppression of material information in the
verification - Held: The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a
transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the
basis of forged documents, the incumbent may be terminated wilhout
holding any inquiry - However in case employee is confirmed,
holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311 (2), due
inquiry has to be held before terminating the services.
Verification form - Held: For determining suppression or false
information, the attestation/verification form has to be specific,
not vague - Only such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed - If information not asked
for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the
question of fitness - However, in such cases action cannot be taken
A VTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
447
on the basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a
A
fact which was not even asked for - Before a person is held guilty
of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, la10wledf{e of the fact must be
attributable to him.
Appointment - Verification of antecedents - Lack of knowledge
on part of employee as to pending criminal case - Held: Appointing
B
authority to take decision after considering the seriousness of the
crime.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1. In case the employer comc<1 to the conclusion
that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been
disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an
incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone
the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently
on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered.
For nigher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high
and even slightest false information or suppression may hy itself
render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard
cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal
cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material
fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment.
An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed,.
to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration
of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully
the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so
effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence
etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made,
employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is
honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and
decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In
case employer comes to conclusion that conviction 01· ground of
acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for
employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in
service. [Para 22] (489-F-H; 490-A-CJ
2. Coming to the question, whether an employee on
probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he
has been acquitted of the charge/s, if his case was not pending
c
D
E
F
G
H
448
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to
consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall
conducl of em11Ioyee including the accusations which have been
levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also
not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved
then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open
to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of
material on record. In case offence is petty in nature committed
at young age, such as stealing a bread, shunting of slogans or is
such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating,
misappropriation etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous
offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when
verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of
suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases
on due consideration of various aspects. No doubt about it that
once verification form requires certain information to be
furnish~d, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and
any suppression of material facts or submitting false information,
may by itself lead to termination of bis services or cancellation
of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal
case incumbent bas not been acquitted and case is pending trial,
employ~r may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent
or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render
him unGuitable for; job and employer is not supposed to wait till
outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or
submitting false information would assume significance and that
by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or
to terminate services. [Paras 23 and 24) (490-D-H; 491-AJ
3; The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction
and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged
documents, the incumbent may be terminated without holding
any inquiry, however in ease employee is confirmed, holding a
civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has
to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining
a1>1>ointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on
very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however,
verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness
otherwise for the post in question. Verification of character and
AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability
and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the
incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective
criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. [Paras 25
and 26] J491-B-E]
·
4. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that
what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial
matter. The employer has to act 011 due consideration of rules/
instructions if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though
a person who has suppressed the material information cannot
claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service
. but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having
due regard to facts of cases. What yardstick is to be applied has
to depend upon the nature of 11ost, higher post would involve
more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed
service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties,
imp~ct of suppression on suitability has to be considered by
concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services
and power bas to be exercised on due consideration of various
aspects. The 'McCarthyism' is antithesis to constitutional goal,
chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in
suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled
out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors
to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for
canc~lling candidature or discl1arging an employee from service;
(Paras 27, 28 and 29) (491-F-H, 492-A-BJ
Union of India & Ors. v. M Bhaskaran (1995) Supp 4
SCC 100: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526 - Distinguished.
Secretary, Department of Home Secy:, A.P. & Ors. l( B.
Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746: 2005 (1) SCR 1147;
R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police & Ors.
(2008) 1 SCC 660: 2007 (11) SCR 456; Union of India
& Ors. v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (2008) 11 SCC 314:
2008 (8) SCR 99; A.P. Public Service Co111111issio11 v.
Kone ti Venkateswarulu & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 177: 2005
(2) Suppl. SCR 1050; Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of
449
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
450
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 7 S.C.R.
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 169: 2009 (16)
SCR 237; Ram Kumar v. State of Utttar Pradesh & ·Ors.
(2011) 14 SCC 709: 2011 (10) SCR 506; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi & Am:
(1983) 2 SCC 145:1983 (2) SCR 393; S. Vasudavan
N'lir v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre &
Ors. (1988) Supp SCC 795; Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushi! Kumar
(1996) 11 sec 605: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199;
Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Am: v. Dhaval Singh
(1999) 1 SCC 246; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan &
Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437: 2003 (2)
SCR 361; Secretary, Depart111e11t of Home Secy., A.P. &
Ors. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746: 2005 (1)
SCR 1147; A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti
Venkateswarulu & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 177: 2005 (2)
Suppl. SCR 1050; Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of
Madhya Pradesh·& Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 169: 2009 (16)
SCR 237; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India &
Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 103: 2010 (13) SCR 1076; State
of West Bengal & Ors. v. SK. Nazrul Islam (2011) 10
SCC 184: 2011 (12) SCR 1033; Co111111issio11er of Police
& Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644: 2011 (3)
SCR 964 - relied on.
Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary, Home & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 748: 2012 (6)
SCR 1047; Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v.
Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal &
Am: (1999) 2 SCC 247 - referred to.
Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2 QB 114; Garner v.
Board of Public Works 341 US 716 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2012 (6) SCR 1047
referred to
Para 1
1983 (2) SCR 393
relied on
Para3
(1988) Supp sec 795
relied on
Para4
1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526
Distinguished
Paras
AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199
relied on
Para6
(1999) 1 sec 246
relied on
Para7
(1,99) 2 sec 247
referred to
Para8
2003 (2) SCR 361
relied on
Para9
200~ (1) SCR 147
relied on
Para 10.
2007 (11) SCR 456
relied on
Para 11
20Q~ (8) SCR99
relied on
Para 12
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1050
relied on
Para 13
2009 (16) SCR 237
relied on
Para 14
2010 (13) SCR 1076
relied on
Para 15
2011 (12) SCR 1033
relied on
Para 17
2on (3) SCR 964
relied on
Para 18.
2011 (10 ) SCR 506
relied on
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 20525 of201 l
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2010 of the High Court
451
A
B
c
D
of Punjab & Haryana in L. P.A. No. 951 of 20 I 0
E
WITH
SLP(C) Nos. 4757 and 24320 of2014~ ·
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Pahlad Singh Shanna, Ms. Hari Priya,
Tushar Bakshi, Ms: Gun want Dara, Ms. Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad,
F
Gyanendra Singh, Vishwa Pal Singh, Shreekant N. Terdal, Rajshekhar
Rao, Sameer Dawar, Varun Mishra, Abhinav Mukerji, P. K. Dey, M.
Khairati, D. S. Mahra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. I. The cases have been referred to for
resolving the conflict of opinion in the various decisions of Division
Benches of this Court as noticed by this Court in Jainendra Singh v.
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors. (2012) 8
SCC 748. The Court has considered the cleavage of opinion in various
decisions on the question of suppression of information or submitting
G
H
452
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
false information in the verification form as to the question of having
been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal
case. A Division Bench of this Comt has expressed the opinion on merits
while referring the matter as to the various.principles to be borne in mind
before granting relief to an aggrieved party. following is the relevant
observation made by a Division Bench of this Comt:
"29. As noted by us, al I the above decisions were rendered
by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two Judges
and having bestowed our serious consideration to the issue,
we consider that while dealing with such an issue, the Court
will.have to bear in mind the various cardinal principles
before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:
29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could
be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the
empfoyer or could be recalled by the employer and in such
cases merely because the respondent employee has
continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of
such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any
equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one
of the important criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on
account of his antecedents the appointing authority if finds
it not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force
can it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the
basis of forged documents, it would amount to
misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore,
it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination without holding
any inquiry.
G
29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information
and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue
in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of
employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to
terminate his services.
H
29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding
AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction
is for the purpose of verification of the character/
antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of
such material information will have a clear bearing on the
character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to
his continuity in service.
29.6. The person who suppressed the material information
and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.
29. 7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve
in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services
and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission
regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and
the ultimate decision of the appointing authority canrtot be
faulted.
29.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from
service or may be refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or making false
statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case,
conviction or detention, even ifultimately he was acquitted
of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make
a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a
higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to
uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in
deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of
appointing constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidatv..to find out whether he is suitable
for the post of a constable and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held
to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable.
30. When we consider the above principles laid down in
the majority of the decisions, the question that looms large
before us is when considering such claim by the candidates
who deliberately suppressed information at the time of
recruitment, can there be different yardsticks applied in the
453
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
454
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
matter of grant of relief.
31. Though there are very many decisions in support of the
various points culled out in the above paragraphs, inasmuch
as we have noted certain other decisions taking different
view of coordinate Benches, we feel it appropriate to refer
the abovementioned issues to a larger Bench of this Court
for an authoritative pronouncement so that there will be no
conflict of views and which will enable the courts to apply
the law uniformly while dealing with such issues."
2. This Court while referring the matter had expressed the opinion
that in case an appointment order has been secured fraudulently, the
appointment is voidable at the option of the employer and the employee
cannot get any equity in his favour and no estoppel is created against the
employer only by the fact that the employee has continued in service for
a number of years. It has been further observed that if appointment is
secured on forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and
fraud. The employer has a right to terminate the services on suppression
of impo1iant information or giving false information, having regard to
nature of employment. Verification of character and antecedents is
important ifthe employer has found an incumbent to be undesi:-able for
appointment to a disciplined force. It cannot be said to be unwarranted.
The Court thus further opined that suppression of material information
necessary for verification of character/antecedents will have a clear
bearing on character and antecedents of a candidate in relation to his
continuity in service and such a person cannot claim a right for
appointment or continuity in service. The Bench was of the view that in
uniformed service, suppression or false information can be viewed
seriously as it requires higher level of integrity and the employer is
supposed to find out before an appointment is made that criminal case
has come to an end and pendency of a case would serve as a bar for
appointment and in such cases of suppression whether different yardsticks
can be applied as noted in the various decisions of this Court. The question
which has been referred to arises frequently and there are catena of
decisions taking one view or the other on the facts of the case. It would
be appropriate to refer to the various decisions rendered by this Court;
some of them have been referred to in the impugned order.
3. It cannot be disputed that the whole idea of verification of
character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in
AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
question is appointed. ft is one of the important criteria which is necessary
to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not
have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable
for the post. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not
render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi & Anr.
(1983) 2 sec 145, where a teacher was employed in a municipal school
which was taken over by the Government and who was absorbed in
Government service in 1972 subject to verification of antecedents and
medical fitness. The termination order was passed on the basis of a
report made by the Superintendent of Police to the effect that the
respondent was not a fit person to be entertained in Government service,
as he had taken part in 'RSS and Jan Sangh activities'. There was no
allegation of involvement in subversive activities. It was held that such
activities were not likely to affect the integrity of individual's service. To
ho Id otherwise would be to introduce 'McCarthyism' into India which is
not healthy to the philosophy of our Constitution. It was observed by this
Court that most students and most youngmen who take part in political
activities and if they do get involved in some form of agitation or the
other, is it to be to their ever lasting discredit ? Sometimes they feel
strongly on injustice and resist. They are sometimes pushed into the
forefront by elderly persons who lead and mislead them. Should all these
young men be debarred from public employment? Is Government service
such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it? This Court has
laid down that the whole business of seeking Police report about the
political beliefand association of the past political activities of a candidate
for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. This Court has considered in Ramashanker Raf{huvanshi's
case (supra) the decision in Garner" Board qf Public Works 341 US
716thus:
"5. In another loyalty oath case, Garner" Board of
Public Works 341 US 716, Douglas, J. had this to say:
Here the past conduct for which punishment is
exacted is single - advocacy within the past five years
of the overthrow of the Government by force and
violence. In the other cases the acts for which
Cummings and Garland stood condemned covered a
wider range and involved some conduct which might be
455
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
456
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 7 S.C.R.
vague and uncertain. But those differences, seized on
here in hostility to the constitutional provisions, are wholly
irrelevant. Deprivation of a man's means of livelihood
by reason of past conduct, not subject to this penalty
when committed, is punishment whether he is a
professional man, a day laborer who works for private
industry, or a Government employee. The deprivation is
nonetheless unconstitutional whether it be for one single
past act or a series of past acts ...
Petitioners were disqualified from office not for
what they are today, not because of any program they
currently espouse (cf. Gerende v. Board of
Supervisors 341 US 56), not because of standards
related to fitness for the office, cf Dent v. West Virginia
129 US 114; Hawkeni New York 170 US 189, but for
what they once advocated ...
6. In the same case, Frankfurter, J. observed :
The needs of security do not require such curbs
on what may well be innocuous feelings and associations.
Such curbs are indeed self-defeating. They are not
merely unjustifiable restraints on individuals. They are
not merely productive of an atmosphere or repression
uncongenial to the spiritual vitality of a democratic
society. The inhibitions which they engender are hostile
to the best conditions for securing a high-minded and
high-spirited public service.
xxxxx
I 0. We are not for a moment suggesting that even after
entry into government service, a person may engage himself
in political activities. All that we say is that he cannot be
turned back at the very threshold on the ground of his past
political activities. Once he becomes a government servant,
he becomes subject to the various rules regulating his
conduct and his activities must naturally be subject to all
rules made in conformity with the Constitution."
At the same time, this Court has also observed that after entry
into Government service, a person has to abide by the service rules in
A VTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
conformity with the Constitution.
4. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in T. S. Vasudava11 Nair v.
Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre & Ors. ( 1988) Supp SCC
795 had considered a case where the employee had suppressed the fact
that during emergency he had been convicted in a case registered under
the Defence oflndia Rules for having_:,:;:~:-::' slogans on one occasion.
This t::ourt has laid down that cancelling the offer ofappointment due to
such non-disclosure was illegal and the employer was directed to appoint
him as a Lower Division Clerk. Thus this Court has taken the view that
non-disclosure of aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the
basis of which employment could have been denied and the person
adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC. This Court has laid
down thus:
"2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the
special facts and circumstances of this case we feel that
the appellant should not have been denied the employment
on the sole ground that he had not disclosed that during
emergency he had been convicted under the Defence of
India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and also the order dated August 1, 1983 cancelling the ofter
of appointment. The respondents shall issue the order of
appointment to the appellant within three months appointing
him as a Lower Division Clerk. if he is not otherwise
disqualified. with effect from the date on which he assumes
duty. It is open to the respondents to employ the appellant
at any place of their choice. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly."
5. In Union of India & Ors. 1\ M Bhaskaran (1995) Supp 4
SCC 100, it was held that if some persons have procured employment in
Railway on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards,
they were rightly held guilty ofmisrepresei1tation and fraud. Mere long
continuance of such employment could not create any equity in their
favour or estoppel against the employer. The question was left open
whether after obtaining employment on the basis of bogus and forged
casual labourer service cards was covered under Rule 3 l(l)(i) and (iii)
of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. It was held that the
employment procured by fraud is voidable at the option of the employer
457
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
458
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
and employee cannot plead estoppel. This Court has laid down thus:
"6. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the
applicability of Rule 3(1 )(i) and (iii) on the facts of the
present cases for the simple reason that in our view the
railway employees concerned, respondents herein, have
admittedly snatched employment in railway service, maybe
of a casual nature, by relying upon forged or bogus casual
labourer service cards. The unauthenticity of the service
cards on the basis of which they got employment is clearly
established on record of the departmental enquiry held
against the employees concerned. Consequently, it has to
be held that the respondents were guilty of misrepresentation
and fraud perpetrated on the appellant-employer while
getting employed in railway service and had snatched such
employment which would not have been made available to
them if they were not armed with such bogus and forged
labourer service cards. Learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that for getting service in railway as casual
labourers, it was strictly not necessary for the respondents
to rely upon such casual service cards. If that was so there
was no occasion for them to produce such bogus
certificates/service cards for getting employed in railway
service. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the respondents
to submit that production of such bogus or forged service
cards had not played its role in getting employed in railway
service. It was clearly a case of fraud on the appellantemployer. If once such fraud is detected, the appointment
orders themselves which were found to be tainted and
vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of
employees, were liable to be recalled and were at least
voidable at the option of the employer concerned; This is
precisely what has happened in the present case. Once the
fraud of the respondents in getting such employment was
detected, the respondents were proceeded against in
departmental enquiries and were called upon to have their
say and thereafter have been removed from service. Such
orders ofremoval would amount to recalling of fraudulently
obtained erroneous appointment orders which were avoided
by the employer-appellant after following the due procedure
A VTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
oflaw and complying with the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, even independently of Rule 3( I )(i) and (iii) of
the Rules, such fraudulently obtained appointment orders
could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the
employer and could be recalled by the employer and in such
cases merely because the respondent-employees have
continued in service for a number of years on the basis of
such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create
any equity in their favour or any estoppel against th~
employer. Jn this connection we may usefully refer to a
decision of this Court in Distt. Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society
v. M Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 .. In that
case Sawant, J. speaking for this Court held that when an
advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an
appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a
matter only between the appointing authority and the
concerned appointee. The aggrieved are all those who had
similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or
appointees but who had not applied for the post because
they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the
advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint
persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances
unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable.
No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the
fraudulent practice. It is of course true as noted by the
Tribunal that the facts of the case in the aforesaid decision
were different from the facts of the present case. And it is
also true that in that case pending the service which was
continued pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the candidate
concerned acquired the requisite qualification and hence
his appointment was not disturbed by this Court. But that is
neither here nor there. As laid down in the aforesaid decision,
if by committing fraud any employment is obtained, such a
fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced
by a court of law. Consequently, it must be held that the
Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in directing
reinstatement of the respondent-workmen with all
consequential benefits. The removal orders could not have
459
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
460
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
been faulted by the Tribunal as they were the result of a
sharp and fraudulent practice on the part of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted
that these illiterate respondents were employed as casual
labourers years back in 1983 and subsequently they have
been given temporary status and, therefore, after passage
of such a long time they should not be thrown out of
employment. It is difficult to agree with this contention. By
mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get
any sanctity. The appellant authorities having come to know
about the fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment
as casual labourers, started departmental proceedings years
back in 1987 and these proceedings have dragged on for a
number of years. Earlier, removal orders of the respondents
were set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench and proceedings were remanded and after
remand, fresh removal orders were passed by the appellant
which have been set aside by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and which arc the subject-matter
of the present proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the appellants are estopped from recalling such
fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents
subject of course to following due procedure of law and in
due compliance with the principles of natural justice, on
which aspect there is no dispute between the parties. If
any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in
favour of the respondents, then it would amount to putting
premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the
facts of the present cases cannot be permitted."
It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that the case of M.
Bhaskaran (supra) did not relate at all to the suppression of material
facts or submitting false infonnation but pe1tained to obtaining employment
on the basis of forged or bogus casual labourer service cards. The
decision in M. Bhaskaran (supra) is quite distinguishable. It has a
different field to operate. Though the principles laid down therein may
be attracted to some extent in a given case in a particular factual scenario
but are not of general application in the cases in which the question
involvec1 is with which we are presently dealing with.
A VTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
6. The next decision mentioned by the Division Bench in the order
of reference is in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary &
Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar ( 1996) 11 SCC 605 in which appointment was
denied to an incumbent who was duly selected for the post of Constable
in Pol ice service subject to verification of character and antecedents.
On verification of his antecedents it was found that he was involved in a
criminal case under sections 304, 324/34 and 324 IPC. The incumbent
was appointed in Delhi Police service in the year 1990. On character
verification, his name was rejected. The tribunal allowed the application
and directed the appointment since employee had been acquitted in the
said criminal case. It was held by this Court that mere acquittal in the
criminal case was not enough once it was found that it was not desirable
to appoint such a person as a Constable in the disciplined force. This
Court opined that the view taken by the employer in the background of
the case cannot be said to be unwarranted, though he was discharged or
acquitted. Antecedents of the incumbents could not be said to be proper.
The Court has held thus :
"3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 69-1995 in OA No. 1756of1991. 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 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. Aggrieved
by proceedings dated 18-12-1990 culminating in cancellation
of his provisional selection, he tiled 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 !PC and under Section 324 IPC,
he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post
under the State. The question is whether the view taken by
461
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
462
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 7 S.C.R.
the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of
the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria
to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post
under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed
the written test and interview and was provisionally 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, 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
focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint
him to the service."
It is apparent that the background of the case was considered by
the employer in the case of Sushi! Kumar (supra) and this Court has
emphasized in the aforesaid background that the decision of the employer
was not unwarranted as the incumbent was rightly not found desirable
for appointment to the service. It was not a case of suppression in the
verification form. The decision does not deal with the effect of
suppression but the case has turned on the background of the facts of
the case in which the incumbent was involved as is apparent from the
discussion made by this Court in para 3 quoted above. Thus, it is apparent
that the background facts of the case have to be taken into consideration
by the employer or court while dealing with such matters.
7. Another· decision of this Court which has been noted in the
order is Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Am: ii Dhaval Singh ( 1999)
1 SCC 246.