LexJAINENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. HOME & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 6 S.C.R. 1047 JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. HOME & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5671 of 2012) JULY 30, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Service Law: Termination - Constable in police department - Concealing certain relevant facts which he was called upon A B c to disclose - At the time of his selection - Termination of his service after selection finalized and appointment made - Whether the termination on the ground of concealment 0 justified - Conflicting views on the issue by various judgments passed by Division Bench of Supreme Court - Matter referred to Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the issue. Deth'i Administration Through its Chief Secretary and Ors. vs. Sushi/ Kumar 1996 (11) SCC 605: 1996 (7) Suppl. E SCR 199; Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526; Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anr. 1999 (2) SCC 247; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. vs. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) F 3 SCC 437: 2003 (2) SCR 361; Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy . . A.P. and Ors. vs. B. Chinnam Naidu 2005 (2) SCC 746: 2005 (1) SCR 1147; R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 660: 2007 (11) SCR 456; Union of India and Ors. vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (2008) 11 G SCC 314: 2008 (8) SCR 99; Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 103: 2010 (13) SCR 1076; State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. SK. Nazr1,1/ Islam 2011 (1 O) SCC 184: 2011 (12) SCR 1033; Commissioner of Police and 1047 H 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644:2011 (3) SCR 964: Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. vs. Dhaval Singh 1999 (1) SCC 246; Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 2010 (2) SCC 169: 2009 (16) SCR 237; Ram Kumar vs. State of UP. and Ors. Civil Appeal No. B 7106/2011 decided by Supreme Court on 19.8.2011 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199 Referred to. Para 17 c 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526 Referred to. Para 18 1999 (2) sec 247 Referred to. Para 19 2003 (2) SCR 361 Referred to. Para 20 D 2005 (1) SCR 1147 Referred to. Para 21 2007 (11) SCR 456 Referred to. Para 22 2008 (8) SCR 99 Referred to. Para 23 E 2010 (13) SCR 1076 Referred to. Para 24 2011 (12) SCR 1033 Referred to. Para 25 2011 (3) SCR 964 Referred to. Para 26 1999 (1) sec 246 Referred to. Para 26 F 2009 (16) SCR 237 Referred to. Para 26 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5671 of 2012. G From the Judgment & Order dated 01.12.2010 of the High Court of Judicatute at Allahabad Writ Petition (C) No. 21900 of 2008. Vineet Dhanda, Puneet Dhanda, JP Dhanda, Raj Rani H Dhanda, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Abhijeet Shah for the Appellant. JAINENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. TR. PRINL. SEC. 1049 HOME Shobha Dikshit, Malvika Trivedi, Anuvrat Sharma, Alka A Sinha, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered ORDER FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J. 1. Leave granted. At the very threshold, we are confronted with a question B as to which of the judgments which have taken conflicting views C have to be followed in the matter of termination of a Constable in the Police Department, who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called upon to disclose after his selection was finalized and after order of appointment was issued by placing him on probation. 2. The brief facts of the case are; the appellant applied for D the post of Constable pursuant to which he participated in the physical test held in the month of October, 2006. He having cleared the physical test was permitted to appear in the written examination which was held on 5.11.2006. Having come out E successful in the written test also, he participated in the interview held in the month of November, 2006. After a subsequent medical examination, the appellant, along with others was declared fit and was sent for training. 3. At the time of consideration of the appellant's claim, a Declaration Form in the form of an Affidavit- was called for in order to ascertain his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case. The appellant submitted the Declaration Form on 10.11.2006 by swearing to an affidavit. 4. In the said affidavit the appellant declared that he has F G not been convicted by any Court;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.