DAYA SHANKAR YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 24-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1076 
A 
DAYA SHANKAR YADAV 
B 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9913 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 24, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 
- r. 5(1) - Termination of service - Selection and appointment 
of employee as constable - Furnishing of false factual 
information by employee in the verification roll as regards 
criminal case registered against him - Termination of service 
- Upheld by High Court - Held: Justified - Employee was not 
D truthful in giving material information regarding his 
antecedents which were relevant for employment in a 
uniformed service - He knowingly made a false statement 
that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case - It cannot 
be said that he was misled into answering the question 
E wrongly - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 -
r. 
14(b). 
Appointment - Verification form - Questions in - Held: 
Should be clear and simple and straightforward - Variation 
F between English and Hindi version should be avoided -
Ambiguity and vague questions would lead to hardship and 
mistakes. 
The appellant was selected and appointed as a 
Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was 
G terminated from service since he gave false information 
in the verification form by concealing the facts. The 
appell,ant filed a departmental appeal and the same was 
dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ petition. The 
H 
1076 
DAYA SHANKAR YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.1077 
High Court dismissed the petition holding that the 
A 
appellant ought to have answered the query in the 
verification form requiring him to disclose whether any 
criminal case registered against him was pending before 
any court and whether he had been convicted by any 
court, as 'yes' and furnished the particulars of the criminal 
B 
prosecution even if he had been acquitted in the criminal 
case; and that the answer 'no' to query amounted to 
concealment of relevant information and, therefore, his 
termination from service was justified. Therefore, the 
1 appellant filed the instant appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 An employee on probation can be 
discharged from service or a prospective employee may 
be refused employment: (i) on the ground of D 
unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from 
his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a 
criminal offence or other conduct (like copying in 
examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment 
from college etc; and (ii) on the ground of suppression 
E 
of material information or making false statement in reply 
to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a 
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 
F 
current dubious conduct and absence of character at the 
time of making the declaration, thereby making him 
unsuitable for the post. [Para 10] [1088-C-F] 
Jr. 
1.2 If the object of the query is to ascertain the 
antecedents and character of the candidate to consider G 
his fitness and suitability for employment, and if the 
consequence of a wrong answer could be rejection of his 
application for appointment, or termination from service 
if already appointed, the least that is expected of the 
H 
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A employer is to ensure that the query was clear; specific 
and unambiguous. Obviously, the employer cannot 
dismiss/discharge/ terminate. an employee, for 
misunderstanding a vague and complex question, and 
giving a wrong answer. [Para 13] [1091-E-F] 
B 
2.1 It is hoped that the CRPF and other uniformed 
services would use clear and simple questions and avoid 
any variations between the English and Hindi versions. 
They might also take note of the fact that the ambiguity 
and vague questions would lead to hardship and 
C mistakes and make the questions simple, clear and 
straightforward. [Para 14] [1091-G] 
2.21n the instant case, the appellant is not entitled to 
any benefit of doubt on the question whether he knew 
D the meaning and purport of questions 12(a) and (b). Even 
assuming that there was ambiguity in the English version 
of the questions, a reading of the Hindi version of the 
questions shows a clear indication of the information that 
was required to be furnished by the declarant. The 
E appellant read the questions

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.