Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9913 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.16989 of 2006]

Daya Shankar Yadav … Appellant

Vs.

Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.  

2. The  appellant  was  selected  and  appointed  as  a  Constable  in  the  

Central  Reserve  Police  Force  on  12.6.2003.  Rule  14(b)  of  the  Central  

Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 required every newly recruited employee  

to furnish factual information about himself. In view of it, the appellant was  

required to fill up and sign a Verification Roll (for short ‘the form’), which  

he did on 6.7.2004. The form starts with the following warnings  :

“1.  The  furnishing  of  false  information  or  suppression  of  any  factual  information  in the  Verification  Roll  would be a  disqualification  and is  likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the government.

2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and  submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately  

1

to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the  Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it  will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.  

3. If the fact that the false information has been furnished or that there has  been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes  to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be  liable to be terminated.”

Queries 12(a) and (b) in the form relating to the antecedents of the employee  

are extracted below :

"१२(क).  क�� आप ककस� अपर�ध क�  ल�ए ल�रफ��र हए ह�,  ��  आप पर म�कदम� च���� ��� ह� �� आपक� लहर�स� म  रख� ��� ह�  �� आपक� जम�न� पर छ�ड� ��� ह� �� ककस� अद��� द�र� आप पर  ज�म�(न� कक�� ��� ह� �� द�ष-लसद कक�� ��� ह� �� आपक� ककस�  ��क स�व� आ��� द�र� उस ककस� पर�क� पवरण म  व0लच�/अप�त  ठहर��� ��� ह� �� ककस� लवशलवद��� �� ल5क� प�लधक�र स0स7�  द�र� पर�क� स� व0लच� कक�� ���/लनक��� ��� ह�!

“12.(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention  or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or  debarred/disqualified  by  any  Public  Service  Commission  from  appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any  examination/restricted  by  any  University  or  any  other  education  authority/Institution ?  

१२(ख).सत��पन लचट� क� भर�� सम� क�� आपक�  लवरद ककस�  अद��� म  �� लवशलवद��� म  �� ककस� ल5क� प�लधक�र/स0स7� म   क�ई क� स च� रह� ह�? �कद(क)  �� (ख)  क� उतर 'ह�>' ह� ��  म�कदम�, ल�रफ��र�, लहर�स�, ज�म�(न�, द�ष-लसद दण@ आकद क�  ब�Bर� द� और ब���  कक �ह फ�म( भर�� सम�  अद���/लवशलवद���/ल5क� प�लधक�र� क�  प�स ककस पक�र क� क� स  च� रह� ह�!"

2

(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or  any other education authority/institution at the time of filling up this  Verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is ‘yes’ then give details of  prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state  about the case pending with the Court/University/Education authority  at the time of filling in this form.”

The  appellant  answered  both  these  questions  in  the  negative  by  writing  

‘Nahin’ (i.e. ‘no’). The form was filled in Hindi, a language understood by  

the appellant.

3. The said form was referred to the Police for verification, who reported  

that Crime case No.67/1997 had been registered against the appellant in the  

Police  Station,  Bahariya,  for  offences  punishable  under  sections  

323/504/506  IPC  and  that  the  court  had  however  discharged  him  on  

17.1.2001, after trial.

3

4. In view of the said report, the fifth respondent (Addl. Dy.IG,CRPF,  

Allahabad) issued a notice dated 27.5.2005 alleging that the appellant had  

given  false  information  in  the  verification  form by  concealing  facts  and  

called upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated.  

The appellant sent a reply dated 4.6.2005 stating that the relevant clause in  

the  verification form required him to disclose  whether  any criminal  case  

registered against  him was pending before any court  and whether he had  

been convicted by any court; and that as he was discharged in the criminal  

case and as no case was pending against him before any court or authority,  

and as he was never sent to jail, he had answered the relevant query in the  

negative and that he had not misrepresented or suppressed any fact nor given  

false information.

5. By order dated 25.6.2005, the fifth respondent terminated the services  

of the appellant under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary  

Service) Rules, 1965. The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was  

dismissed  by  the  Inspector  General  of  Police,  CRPF,  Lucknow  (third  

respondent herein), by order dated 23.9.2005. Thereafter the appellant filed a  

writ petition challenging the order of termination which was dismissed by  

the High Court by the impugned order dated 3.8.2006. The High Court held  

that  the  appellant  ought  to  have  answered the  query  12(a)  as  “yes”  and  

4

furnished the particulars  of  the criminal prosecution even if  he had been  

acquitted in the criminal case. It was of the view that as he was prosecuted in  

a  criminal  case,  appellant’s  answer  to  query  12(a)  as  ‘no’  amounted  to  

concealment  of  relevant  information  and  therefore  his  termination  from  

service was justified. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special  

leave. The question is whether termination of the service of appellant was  

justified.  

The legal position

6. This  Court  has  considered  the  consequences  of  making  a  false  

statement  or  suppressing  material  information  in  verification  forms  in  

several  decisions.  In  Delhi  Administration,  v.  Sushil  Kumar –  1996 (11)  

SCC  605,  this  Court  stressed  that  verification  of  the  character  and  

antecedents  is  one  of  the  important  criteria  to  test  whether  the  selected  

candidate is suitable to a post under the state.  

6.1) In  Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v.  Ram Ratan Yadav -  2003 (3)  

SCC 437,  this  Court  held  that  the  purpose  of  requiring  an  employee  to  

furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction etc. in the verification  

form  was  to  assess  his  character  and  antecedents  for  the  purpose  of  

5

employment  and  continuation  in  service;  that  suppression  of  material  

information  and  making  a  false  statement  in  reply  to  queries  relating  to  

prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and  

antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee  

had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a  

bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from  

service  during the  period of  probation without  holding any inquiry.  This  

Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor  

the  ultimate  acquittal  therein  was  relevant  when  considering  whether  a  

probationer  who  suppresses  a  material  fact  (of  his  being  involved  in  a  

criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit  

to be continued as a probationer.

6.2) In  R.  Radhakrishnan  vs.  Director  General  of  Police –  2008  (1)  

SCC 660, this Court considered the case of a candidate for appointment as a  

Fireman, furnishing wrong information about his involvement in a criminal  

case, though he was acquitted. This Court held that the standards expected of  

a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a  

person  who  intended  to  serve  in  other  services.  As  the  application  for  

appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English,  

this  Court  concluded  that  the  candidate  knew  and  understood  the  

6

implications of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information, and  

by not disclosing about his involvement in a criminal case, the candidate is  

preventing the authority from verifying his character as also suitability of the  

appointment.  This  Court  therefore  refused  to  exercise  its  equitable  

jurisdiction in favour of such a candidate who had suppressed material facts.

6.3. In Union of India vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen – 2008 (11) SCC 314, this  

Court  dealt  with  the  validity  of  the  termination  of  service  of  respondent  

therein  who  had  been  selected  for  training  as  a  constable  in  a  Railway  

Protection Force. This Court observed thus :  

“9. It is the admitted case that the respondent was still under probation  at the time his services had been terminated. It is also apparent from the  record  that  the  respondent  had  been  given  appointment  on  probation  subject to verification of the facts given in the attestation form. To our  mind, therefore, if an enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the  appellant was at liberty to dispense with the services of the respondent as  the question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not  arise.  

10. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of service of  the respondent is not his involvement in the two cases which were then  pending, and in which he had been discharged subsequently, but the fact  that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the attestation  form. We are further of the opinion that an employment as a police officer  pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to  uphold the law, and on the contrary,  such a service born in deceit  and  subterfuge cannot be tolerated.”  

7. On the other hand, where the non-furnishing of material information  

is due to absence of clarifying the question or due to the candidate not being  

7

aware  of  the  said  information,  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  had  suppressed  

material information or made false statements.  

7.1) In Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. vs. B. Chinnam Naidu – 2005  

(2)  SCC  746,  this  Court  after  reiterating  that  suppression  of  material  

information or giving false information in attestation form would result in  

the candidate being discontinued from service, cautioned that the court will  

have to examine in each case, whether a candidate has suppressed material  

information or has given false information in the attestation form; and where  

the candidate is required to state as to whether he has been convicted by a  

criminal  court,  if  the  candidate  answered in  the  negative,  the  fact  that  a  

criminal  case  was  pending  as  on  that  date,  would  not  amount  to  

misrepresentation. This Court held :  

“The State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on  the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or  pendency of the case, though column 12 of the attestation form did not  require  such  information  being  furnished.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  such  a  requirement  has  to  be  read  into  an  attestation form. We find no reason to accept such contention. There was  no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is pending or  whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific language  so far as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be found guilty of  any suppression.  In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan case the position was the reverse. There  the candidate took the stand that as there was no conviction, his negative  answers to columns 12 and 13 were not wrong. This Court did not accept  the stand that requirement was conviction and not prosecution in view of  the information required under columns 12 and 13 as quoted above. The  requirement  was  ‘prosecution’  and  not  ‘conviction’.  The  logic  has  

8

application here. The requirement in the present case is ‘conviction’ and  not ‘prosecution’.  

The  question  whether  he  was  a  desirable  person  to  be  appointed  in  government  service  was  not  the  subject-matter  of  adjudication  and the  Tribunal was not justified in recording any finding in that regard. Whether  a person is fit to be appointed or not is a matter within the special domain  of the government.”  

7.2) In State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar – 2008 (3) SCC 222, this Court  

considered the  case of  an employee who had answered “No” to  a query  

whether he was arrested. It was found that subsequent to registration of FIR,  

he had voluntarily appeared before the magistrate, without being taken into  

formal custody and was granted bail and was ultimately acquitted. It was  

held that in such circumstances, it was not altogether unreasonable to expect  

a layman to construe that he had never been arrested, even though the legal  

position may be otherwise. It was held that in such circumstances, even if  

what transpired may technically amount to arrest, the benefit of a mistaken  

impression  rather  than  the  consequences  of  a  deliberate  and  willful  

misrepresentation  and  concealment  of  facts,  should  be  extended  to  the  

employee.

8. Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, relevant in  

this  case  relates  to  verification.  Clauses  (a)  and (b)  of  the  said Rule are  

extracted below :

9

(a)  As  soon  as  a  man  is  enrolled,  his  character,  antecedents,   connections  and  age  shall  be  verified  in  accordance  with  the  procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.   The Verification Roll  shall  be sent to the Distt.  Magistrate  or Dy.   Commissioner of the Distt. of which, the recruit is a resident.

(b)  The  Verification  Roll  shall  be  in  CRP  Form-25  and  after   verification shall be attached to the Character and Service Roll of the  member of the Force concerned.”

The purpose of seeking the said information is to ascertain character and  

antecedents  of  the  candidate  so  as  to  assess  his  suitability  for  the  post.  

Therefore, the candidate will have to answer the questions in these Columns  

truthfully  and  fully  and  any  misrepresentation  or  suppression  or  false  

statement  therein,  by  itself  would  demonstrate  a  conduct  or  character  

unbefitting for a uniformed security service.

9. When  an  employee  or  a  prospective  employee  declares  in  a  

verification  form,  answers  to  the  queries  relating  to  character  and  

antecedents,  the  verification  thereof  can  therefore  lead  to  any  of  the  

following consequences:-  

(a) If  the  declarant  has  answered  the  questions  in  the  affirmative  and  

furnished  the  details  of  any criminal  case  (wherein  he  was  convicted  or  

acquitted by giving benefit  of doubt for want of evidence),  the employer  

may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation,  

1

discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the  

nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.

(b) On  the  other  hand,  if  the  employer  finds  that  the  criminal  case  

disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a  

nature that would not affect the declarant’s fitness for employment, or where  

the declarant had been honorably acquitted and exonerated,  the employer  

may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case  

and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.  

(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on  

verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse  

to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the  

declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because  

when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing  

on  his  character,  that  itself  becomes  a  reason  for  not  employing  the  

declarant.   

(d) Where  the  attestation  form  or  verification  form  does  not  contain  

proper  or  adequate  queries  requiring  the  declarant  to  disclose  his  

involvement  in  any  criminal  proceedings,  or  where  the  candidate  was  

unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations  

in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found  

fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer  

by other means (say police verification or complaints etc.) learns about the  

involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a)  

or (b) above.  

1

10. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a  

prospective  employee  may  be  refused  employment:  (i)  on  the  ground of  

unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a  

criminal  case,  or  his  involvement  in  a  criminal  offence  (even  if  he  was  

acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct  

(like  copying  in  examination)  or  rustication  or  suspension  or  debarment  

from  college  etc.;  and  (ii)  on  the  ground  of  suppression  of  material  

information  or  making  false  statement  in  reply  to  queries  relating  to  

prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence (even if he was ultimately  

acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of  

previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct  

and  absence  of  character  at  the  time of  making  the  declaration,  thereby  

making him unsuitable for the post.  

Position in this case

11. The respondents  contended that the decision of High Court  was in  

consonance with the principles laid down in several decisions of this Court  

and therefore, did not call for interference. The appellant on the other hand  

contended  that  the  decision  in  Kendriya  Vidyalaya  Sangathan, was  

1

distinguishable. He drew our attention to the nature of the queries in that  

case. The following were the two queries in the verification form relating to  

antecedents and character :

“12. Have you ever been prosecuted/kept under detention or bound   down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence?   

13. Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of  filling up this attestation form?”

The appellant  contended that  the said queries  (12)  and (13)  in  Kendriya  

Vidyalaya Sangathan, were simple and clear; and that this Court had also  

found in that case that the employee, who answered the said queries in the  

negative and thereby misrepresented the facts, was highly qualified (holding  

BA, B.Ed. and M.Ed. degrees) and had therefore rejected the contention that  

he could not understand the queries.  

12. The appellant submitted that in this case questions 12(a) and (b) in the  

verification  form  were  complex,  ambiguous,  tangled,  involved  and  

confusing for the following reasons :  

(i) Question 12(a) involved three distinct and separate issues. The first  

relates  to  criminal  prosecution  and  conviction.  The  second  relates  to  

disqualification  by  public  service  commission.  The  third  relates  to  

debarment from examinations by universities/educational authorities.  

1

(ii) The  first  part  of  Question  12(b)  sought  information  relating  to  

pendency of cases. The second part of query 12(b) was not a query, but an  

instruction common to queries (a) and (b),  as to how further information  

should be given if the answer to the query was “yes”.  

(iii) There  was  a  variation  between  the  English  version  and  the  Hindi  

version  of  question  12(a)  and the  words  “restricted  by  any university  or  

other education Institution”, in query 12(a) appears to have been erroneously  

printed  instead  of  the  words  “rusticated  by  any  university  or  other  

educational institution.”

(iv) The second part of query 12(b) as also the nature of Queries 12(a) and  

12(b) contemplated the employee – declarant to answer the queries 12(a) and  

(b)  in  monosyllable  answers  of  ‘yes’  or  ‘no’;  and  only  if  the  declarant  

answered  query  12(a)  as  ‘yes’,  he  had  to  give  further  particulars.  If  an  

employee answers query 12(a) by the word ‘yes’ it would really mean that  

he  has  been  arrested,  prosecuted,  kept  under  detention  and  bound  

down/fined/and  convicted  by  a  court  of  law  even  if  he  has  not  been  

subjected to all those processes.

(v) The first part of query 12(a) is capable of being interpreted in two  

ways.  One way of  reading it  is  :  “whether  the  declarant  had ever  been  

arrested,  or prosecuted, or kept under detention, or bound down/fined, or   

convicted by a court of law for any offence”, thereby requiring the declarant  

to  state  whether  he  was  subjected  to  any  one  of  those  events/processes.  

Another way of reading it is  : “whether the declarant has been arrested,   

1

prosecuted, kept under detention, bound down/fined, and convicted by any   

court of law for any offence” thereby requiring the declarant to state whether  

he had undergone all  those events/processes  with reference to a criminal  

offence.  The  above  questions  can  confuse  not  only  a  person  with  basic  

education, but may even confuse a person legally trained to assume that he  

has to answer ‘yes’ only if he had been convicted and not otherwise.  

13. We agree that the English version of the questions were involved and  

confusing. If the queries in 12(a) and (b) in this case had been split  into  

separate questions with instructions, to provide clarity and precision, there  

would have been no room for controversy. For example, if questions 12(a)  

and (b) had been split up into five separate questions with a note as follows,  

there would have been no confusion or ambiguity :  

a) Have you ever been arrested or prosecuted or kept under detention?

b) Have you ever been bound down or fined or convicted by a court of law  for any offence ?

c) Have  you  ever  been  debarred  or  disqualified  by  any  Public  Service  Commission from appearing in any of its examinations or selections ?

d) Have  you  ever  been  debarred  from  taking  any  examination  by  any  University, or expelled or rusticated from any educational institution ?  

              e) Whether  any  case  is  pending  against  you in  any  court  or  before  any  

University/educational  authority/institution  at  the  time of  filling  up of  this Verification Roll ?

Note:  If the answer to any of the above queries is ‘yes’, then give details.

1

If the object of the query is to ascertain the antecedents and character of the  

candidate to consider his fitness and suitability for employment, and if the  

consequence  of  a  wrong  answer  can  be  rejection  of  his  application  for  

appointment, or termination from service if already appointed, the least that  

is expected of the employer is to ensure that the query was clear, specific  

and  unambiguous.  Obviously,  the  employer  cannot  dismiss/discharge/  

terminate an employee, for misunderstanding a vague and complex question,  

and giving a wrong answer.

14. We do hope that the CRPF and other uniformed services will use clear  

and  simple  questions  and  avoid  any  variations  between  the  English  and  

Hindi versions. They may also take note of the fact that the ambiguity and  

vague questions will lead to hardship and mistakes and make the questions  

simple, clear and straightforward. Be that as it may.  

15. But in this case, the appellant is not entitled to any benefit of doubt on  

the question whether he knew the meaning and purport of questions 12(a)  

and (b). Even assuming that there was ambiguity in the English version of  

the questions, a reading of the Hindi version of the questions shows a clear  

indication  of  the  information  that  was  required  to  be  furnished  by  the  

1

declarant. The appellant read the questions in Hindi and answered them in  

Hindi. We extract below an English translation of query 12(a) in Hindi to  

show that there was no ambiguity in regard to the question :  

English Translation of the question in Hindi

“Have you ever  been arrested  for  any offence  or have  been  prosecuted or have been taken in custody or have been released  on bail  or have been fined/convicted by court of law  or have  been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission  from appearing at  its  examination/selection  or debarred from  taking any examination/restricted by any university or any other  educational authority/institution?”  

(emphasis supplied)

The fact  that  a  criminal  case  was  registered  against  the  appellant  is  not  

disputed. The fact that no criminal case was pending against him, when  he  

gave the verification declaration in the year 2004, or the fact that he was not  

convicted or  fined or  bound down in any case,  loses relevance,  when he  

clearly suppressed the material fact that he was prosecuted and thereby made  

a false statement. Though the English version of the questions could have  

used a little more clarity, we cannot agree with the contention that he was  

misled  into  answering the  question  wrongly,  as  the  Hindi  version of  the  

1

questions which were answered by the appellant did not  suffer from any  

vagueness or ambiguity.  

16. We  are  satisfied  that  the  appellant  had  knowingly  made  a  false  

statement that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case. Therefore, the  

employer (CRPF) was justified in dispensing with his services for not being  

truthful in giving material information regarding his antecedents which were  

relevant for employment in a uniformed service, and that itself justified his  

discharge from service.  Consequently, we dismiss this appeal as having no  

merit.  

………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ……………………….J. November 24, 2010. (H L Gokhale)   

1