http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4874 of 2007

PETITIONER: R. Radhakrishnan

RESPONDENT: The Director General of Police and Others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/10/2007

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4875 OF 2007 [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 17395 of 2006]

J U D G M E N T  [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) No. 17394 of 2006] 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. 13357 of 2002 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:

\023I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement  which has been made by me is found to be false, I  shall render myself liable to be dismissed for  obtaining service under false pretences.

***                     ***                     ***

15.     Have you ever been concerned in          any criminal case as accused?           No 16.     Have you ever been arrested or          convicted and sentenced to undergo         imprisonment or pay a fine in any          criminal or other offence? If so,               No         give details with C.C. No. and Court.

***                     ***                     ***

18.     Are there any civil or criminal cases         pending against you? If so, details.    No\024

4.      It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an incident  which occurred on 15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under Section  294(b) of the Indian Penal Code.  He was arrested but was released on bail.   He, however, was acquitted of the said charge on 25.09.2000.  Inter alia on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the premise that he had made false statement in his verification roll, in  regard to the pendency of the aforementioned case, he was not selected.   

5.      He filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative  Tribunal.  The learned Tribunal by reason of a judgment and order dated  4.03.2002 opined that as he had been acquitted in the criminal case, there did  not exist any reason as to why he should be denied an appointment to the  post of Fireman.  A writ petition preferred thereagainst by the respondent  herein was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.   

6.      Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant, in support of this appeal, raised a short question, viz., having  regard to the fact that the appellant signed the application prior to the date  when the alleged accident took place and also stood acquitted when he filled  up the verification roll, he cannot be said to have wilfully suppressed any  material fact warranting denial from appointment in service.   

7.     The learned counsel would contend that in a case of this nature, the  High Court ought to have taken a sympathetic view and should not have  allowed the writ petition of the respondent only on the ground that he had  suppressed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case.

8.      Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that bona fide or otherwise  on the part of the appellant cannot be a criteria for determining the issue.   The learned counsel submitted that had the relevant fact, viz., involvement  in a criminal case and that too a cognizable offence under Section 294(b) of  the Indian Penal Code, been disclosed, the appointing authority could have  verified his character and suitability for appointment.  It was pointed out that  the persons similarly situated against whom criminal cases had been  instituted had not been selected.   

9.      The learned counsel furthermore submitted that in view of the fact  that the appellant knew that he would be liable to be dismissed in service if  the statement made in the verification roll was found to be false cannot now  be heard to say that he omitted to mention the pendency of the criminal case  under a bona fide belief or otherwise.   

10.     Indisputably, Appellant intended to obtain appointment in a  uniformed service.  The standard expected of a person intended to serve in  such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve  other services.  Application for appointment and the verification 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 persons who had not made such  disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.

11.     The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi  Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others v. Sushil Kumar  [(1996) 11 SCC 605] wherein it was categorically held:   \0233\005The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed  the application on the ground that since the  respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted  of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC,  under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and  under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the  right of appointment to the post under the State.  The question is whether the view taken by the  Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

State. Though he was found physically fit, passed  the written test and interview and was  provisionally selected, on account of his  antecedent record, the appointing authority found  it not desirable to appoint a person of such record  as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view  taken by the appointing authority in the  background of the case cannot be said to be  unwarranted\005.\024

12.     Mr. Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S.  Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and Others  [1988 Supp SCC 795].  The said decision has been rendered, as would be  evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and circumstances of the  said case and cannot be treated to be a binding precedent.   

13.     In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a  material fact.  In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of  exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.   

14.     For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals  which are dismissed accordingly.  However, in the facts and circumstances  of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.