KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. versus RAM RATAN YADAV

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 26-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'\ 
' 
KENDRIY A VIDY ALAYA SANG ATHAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAM RATAN YADAV 
FEBRUARY 26, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Termination of service-Candidate selected as teacher-Giving false C 
information in at(estationform on appointment-False information with regard 
to prosecutionfor arry offence and if any case pending qgainst candidate-
Order of termination-Trial Court upholding the order however, High Court 
setting aside the same-On appeal held: Suppression of material information 
had a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate's 
suitability to continue in service for which the information was sought-Also D 
the subsequent withdrawal of the court case and the nature of offence not 
material thus High Court erred in setting aside the termination order-
Constitution of India-Article 136. 
Attestation form-Filling up of-Requirement of giving details of criminal E 
cases-Not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence but for the purpose 
of verification of character and antecedents of the candidate. 
Respondent was selected fo~ the post of teacher. On getting the 
appointment order he filled the attestation form and against a column 
seeking information with regard to prosecution by Court for any offence p 
and if any case pending against him, respondent stated 'no' even though 
criminal case was pending against him. Respondent also certified the 
information to be correct and complete. Respondent's services were 
terminated as he suppressed factual information in the attestation form. 
Respondent filed an application challenging the termination order. 
Tribunal dismissed the same. However, High Court allowed the writ G 
petition and set aside the termination order holding that the medium of 
instruction of the respondent was Hindi and the criminal case had been 
withdrawn which was not of serious nature. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that in terms of memorandum containing offer 
361 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A of appointment, respondent was required to file necessary annexures and 
attestation forms if he was to accept the offer of appointment; that para 
9 of the memorandum shows that suppression of any information will be 
considered a major offence for which the punishment may extend to 
dismissal from service; that the memorandum terminating services of the 
B respondent was issued after proper consideration, taking note of 
respondent's statement made in column Nos.12 and 13 of the attestation 
form in regard to verification of character and antecedents; that the High 
Court commttted a serious error in setting aside the order of the Tribunal 
and _was als1> not justified in exercising power of judicial review; that the 
respondent having obtained the degrees of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed., it could 
C not be accepted that he could l)Ot understand as to what is stated in column 
No.12; that the subsequent withdrawal of criminal case or that the offences 
were not serious were immaterial; and that the question, whether on the 
date when he filed the attestation form, the respondent suppressed the 
inforl'.' . .ition or made a false statement, was material. 
D 
Respondent contended that the suppression of information was not 
deliberate, it was because he could not correctly unc.l.erstand the contents 
of column No.12-terms like 'prosecution' and 'conviction'- having studied 
in Hindi medium; that for suppression of information respondent could 
be dismissed from service but, dismissal from service was not automatic 
E and also his case ought to have been considered; that High Court was 
justified in setting aside the order of tribunal; and that this Court may 
not interfere with the impugned order having regard to nature of the 
offences in regard to which a criminal case was filed against respondent 
which did not involve any moral turpitude, respondent having been 
selected based on qualification and suitability and he having put in one-
F and-a-half years service. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Assuming that the respondent's medium of instruction 
was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study 
G English language at all at any stage of his education-B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed 
and also his case was not so. If he could understand other columns 
correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version 
that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns s

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