SATISH CHANDRA YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 26-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
   [2022] 10 S.C.R. 537
537
SATISH CHANDRA YADAV
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form – Dismissal of
the appellants from service – Correctness of – Held: In case of
appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 20860 of
2019, what led to the termination of his services was not his
involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in
which he was acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld
relevant information while filling in the verification Form – Appellant
was given appointment on probation subject to the verification of
facts given in the verification Form – Therefore, if an enquiry
revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent was at
liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant – In the
connected Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 5170 of 2021, the
appellant had put in about four years of service before he came to
be terminated, however the said appeal also fails on the very same
line of reasoning – Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1965 – r.5 – CRPF Act, 1949 – Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955 – r.27.
Service Law – Appointment – Public employment – Criminal
Antecedents – Suppression of information or submitting false
information in the verification Form – Principles of law to be made
applicable to such litigations – Held: Each case should be scrutinised
thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated
officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force,
who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness,
since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to
society’s security – Even in a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate – Further, acquittal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post – It would be still open to the employer to
consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate
concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post –
Generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the
candidates leading to condonation of the offenders conduct, should
not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
Service Law – Appointment – Suppression of information/
submitting false information in the verification form – Criminal
prosecution, arrest or pendency of a criminal case – Precedent of
Avtar Singh case – Position of law post Avtar Singh – Discussed.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of appeal under
– Held: Unless, it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been
done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity
to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, Supreme Court
would not exercise its overriding powers u.Article 136(1) – The
wide discretionary power invested u/Article 136 is to be exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The only reason to refer to and look into the
various decisions rendered by this Court over a period of time is
that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are
bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case
of Avtar Singh different courts have enunciated different
principles. In such circumstances, this Court has undertaken
some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should
be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The
principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public
employer concerned, through its designated officials–more so,
in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a
duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability
to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.
[See Raj Kumar]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate. The ac

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