LexDEVENDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 471 DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2006) JULY 29, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Service Law - Termination of service - On account of suppression of the fact of pendency of criminal case - Held: A B Where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts C by playing fraud upon competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law - Material Information sought by the employer, if not disclosed, would amount to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in -a Criminal case - The services of the appellant rightly D terminated~ Maxims: 'fraus et jus nunguam cohabitant' - Applicability of. 'Subia fundamento cedit opus' - Applicability of. 'Nullus Commodum Capere Petest De lnjuria Sua Propria' - Applicability of. E -~ ·, ::"' appellant, who at the time of his appointment as F a constabh., submitted on affidavit that he had never been involvea ,'..:i a criminal case. The respondent- authorities in pursuance of the process of character verification found that the appellant was involved in a criminal case, in respect whereof, a closure report was G submitted by the police and accepted by the Magistrate. Respondent-authority terminated his services. Single judge as well as Division Bench of High Court upheld the termination of service. Hence the present appeal. 471 H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as Courts are obliged to do justice by 8 promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law." [Para 12] [480-G-H; 481-A] 2.1. Where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the C competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). "Misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud", and further D "fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom E although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances, the Court should not F perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuation in service. [Paras 11, 14, 15, 16 and 18] [480- G E-F; 481-C, D-G; 483-D] S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. Mis. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151: 1994 H (2) SCC 647; State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Prabhu DEVENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & 473 ORS. (1994) 2 SCC 481; Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. Mis. Shaw Bros. A AIR 1992 SC 1555: 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 446; United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1165: M.P. Mittal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.AIR 1984 SC 1888: 1985 (1) SCR 940; Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4096: 2004 (12) SCC 713; B Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. vs. GirdharilalYadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran AIR 1996 SC 686: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526; District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society vs .. M. Tripura Sundari c Devi (1990) 3 sec 655: 1990 (2) SCR 559 - relied on. Lazarus Estate Ltd~ vs. Besalay 1956 All E.R. 349 - referred to. 2.2. In the present case, an FIR was registered D against the appellant and others under Sections 402/465/ 471 and 120-B IPC. In respect of the same, a closure report was submitted which was accepted by the Magistrate. [Para 6] [479-A-B] 2.3.The High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.