R. RADHAKRISHNAN versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R. RADHAKRISHNAN 
--< -
~-
v. 
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
~ 
c 
Appointment of Fireman-Provisionally selected candidate 
required to disclose in verification roll if he had been involved in 
criminal case and non-disclosure would render him liable to dismissal-
Non-disclosure by selectee on the pretext that he was ultimately 
acquitted-Selection not made-Challenge against-Held: He was 
D rightly not selected as he suppressed material facts-In such situation, 
question of exercising equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not 
arise-Equity. 
The appellant filed an application for the post of Fireman on 
E 5.1.2000. He was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a 
verification roll. The venfication roll contemplated that in case the 
statement furnished by the selectee is found false, it would render him 
liable to dismissal. In the clauses as to whether selectee has been 
concerned in any criminal case as accused, or whether any Civil or 
F criminal cases pending against him or whether had been arre!;ted or 
convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay fine in any 
criminal or other offence, the appellant had answered in negative. 
~~ 
He however, was involved in an incident which occurred on 
15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under Section 294(b) of the 
G Indian Penal Code. He was arrested but was released on bail. He was 
acquitted of the said charge on 25.09.2000. He was not selected on the 
premise that he had made false statement in his verification roll, in 
,k, 
regard to the pend ency of the aforementioned case. 
H 
456 
....... 
R. RADHAKRISHNAN v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 
457 
OF POLICE 
...... -·....,. 
He filed OA before Administrative Tribunal which was allowed on A 
the ground that as he had been acquitted in the criminal case and hence 
there did not exist any reason denying appointment to the post of 
Fireman. The employer-respondent successfully filed writ petition 
before the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B, 
.#' 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, Appellant intended to obtain appointment 
-~ 
in a uniformed senrice. The standard expected of a person intended to 
senre in such a senrice is different from the one of a person who intended 
-
to senre other senrices. Application for appointment and the verification c 
roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and 
understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a 
vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been 
made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability 
of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the D 
persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly 
situated had not been appointed. [Para 10] [457-B, C] 
2. The appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this 
nature, question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favourwould E 
not arise. [Para 13] [461-B] 
TS Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vila-am Sarabhai Space Centre 
and Ors., [1988] Supp SCC 795, distinguished. 
Delhi Administration through its Chief Secret my and Ors. v. Sushi! F 
~r 
Kumar, (1996] 11 SCC 605, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4874 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2004 of the High G 
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 13357/2002. 
,r ..... 
WITH 
C.A. No. 4875/2007 
H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
-< - ..-
A 
V. Prabhakar, V. Subramani, Revathy Raghavan and Ramjee Prasad 
"" 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
for the Appellant. 
R. Venkatramani,V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabhu 
Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with judgments and orders 
dated 21.01.2004 and 27.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras in Writ Petition No. 13357of2002 and R.A. No. 68 of 2005 
respectively, is before us. 
3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of an advertisement dated 
29.12.1999 having been issued in that behalf, the appellant filed an 
application for appointment to the post of Fireman on 05.01.2000. He 
was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a verification roll, the 
relevant part whereof reads as under: 
"I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement which has been 

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