Furnishing Of Wrong Information For Securing A Job Amounts To Fraud Upon The Employer: Calcutta High Court

A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while deciding a writ petition in the case of Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India has held each candidate selected for the post of Constable in RPF must be free from all vices, possess a sense of sufficient responsibility, and be truthful, dutiful, vigilant as well as honest. Therefore, the furnishing of wrong information for securing a job amounts to fraud upon the employer.

Background of Facts

Ram Asheesh Yadav (Petitioner) had been selected as a constable in the Railway Protection Force (Respondent) on 09.10.2014. During training, the Petitioner was asked to furnish an affidavit and attestation form bearing some questionaries to the Respondent. Subsequently, the Respondent came to know that a criminal case was pending against the Petitioner. Regardless, of the fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charges, the Respondent discharged the Petitioner from the post on the ground that the petitioner had furnished false information and/or suppressed factual information in both the attestation form as well as the affidavit. The Petitioner then challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court which was allowed, and the discharge order of the Petitioner was set aside. The court ordered the Respondent to reconsider the matter and give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in light of observations of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors 2016 (8) SCC 471. The Respondent thus reconsidered the matter and passed another order of discharge on 10.04.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed a writ petition.

The Petitioner contended, inter alia, that he was of a rural background and was unaware of the true implication of the affidavit and thus the incorrect information was inadvertently furnished. It was further contended that due to the Petitioner's lack of sufficient education, he had furnished the information in respect of the questionnaires as available in the attestation form but later was detected that out of the answers, two were not accurate which does not amount to material suppression. Additionally, the Petitioner contended that the criminal case was on account of a village dispute and the offences with which the Petitioner was charged were minor offences which involve no ingredients of moral turpitude. Lastly, the Petitioner contended that the post in which he was selected was the lowest grade in the RPF and therefore it cannot be said that the post is sensitive and thus for furnishing the alleged wrong and/or false information, the Petitioner should not have been discharged.

On the other hand, it was contended inter alia, by the Respondents that the Petitioner was not only found guilty of furnishing wrong information before the Respondent but also furnished it before the court with regard to his alleged date of knowledge regarding pendency of a criminal case against him. Further, the Petitioner in the post of constable was purely provisional and subject to the satisfactory police verification report. In not giving due information with regard to his involvement in the criminal proceedings, the Petitioner violated the condition of his provisional appointment. Further, the Respondent contended that the furnishing of wrong information in the attestation form which was printed in both English and Hindi and further swearing of false affidavit showed deliberate suppression of material facts which raised serious doubt with regard to the honesty and integrity of the Petitioner. The court further observed that where the respondent are at all justified in discharging the present writ petitioner from his service

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the attestation form was printed in both English and Hindi and therefore, the Petitioner could not claim that he had furnished wrong information on account of his rural background and lack of higher education. As such, the petitioner had knowingly suppressed the information regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him not only in the affidavit but also in the attestation form. Further, the court observed that the post of Constable in the RPF is very much sensitive as a constable in discharge of his duty is duty bound to keep constant vigil for protection of the properties of the Railway Authorities as well as for protection of the lives of the passengers on board. As such, the court observed that it is expected that each candidate selected for the post must be free from all vices, should possess sense of sufficient responsibility, and be truthful, dutiful, vigilant as well as honest. Therefore, by furnishing wrong information for securing a job, the petitioner had practiced fraud upon the respondent.

With the aforementioned observations, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case: Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No. WPA 4419/2019

Counsels for the Applicant: Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal

Click Here To Read/Download Order